Waterford Politics MEGATHREAD

robtri

fuzzy dunlop wrote: »

So in other words anything goes......

any links to that survey yet or was it just BS

fuzzy dunlop

Gardner wrote: »

back on local issues. were 12 months out from a GE. who do you see Waterford returning?

i think in order:

John Deasy FG
John Halligan Ind
Mulligan/Walsh FF (Michael Walsh rumoured to be running for FF)
David Cullinane SF

Coffey and Conway to lose seats without doubt

I think Coffey and Conway will be gone. The city has been savaged by this government and I think they will pay the price. I peronally hope so.

Deasy (He is like a feudal lord in the west, he only has to turn up)
Halligan (Maybe)
Cullinane will take a seat for SF
Michael Walsh if he runs.

I personally want to see FG decimated like FF were in 2011 so the two parties are forced to merge. I have enough of the three ring circus that has been running this country since 1922. For that reason I will vote SF and that will be a first for me. The economic sky won't fall in as some will have you believe.We need a new party in this country but Renua do not inspire confidence to be honest. I think FF will do better than expected like what happened in the locals so I think they will take one seat. I think the swing/protest vote could as easily go to a centre right candidate as a left wing candidate so I think if a convincing independent runs they could take Halligans seat.

I think we are back in the days of the early eighties where we saw a period of seats changing between FF and FG via smaller parties like the Workers part and PD's. This might not be bad as it saw us with a cabinet minister for 10 years. So the last thing we need to do now is vote conservatively like our neighbouring constituencies. If we return two FG and Labour we will just send a message that we are dropping our pants and taking one for the rest of yez.......Excuse the expression!

fuzzy dunlop

robtri wrote: »

any links to that survey yet or was it just BS

Any links to back up your own assertions? Or is that just something you expect from others?

spikadelica

In regards to the SSM amendment it seems to me that the 'christian' element of the argument have succeeded in turning the debate away from the core issue of SSM and now are pushing the line of SS adoptions having equal status etc. This is not what the referendum is about, in the ballot box you are being asked a simple equality question, do gay same sex couples merit the same rights as hetero couples. Now please inform me without references to the bible or gospels as to who decided that marriage was strictly a man and woman exclusive, and if this is merely a religious concept surely the time has come to put it away.

fuzzy dunlop

spikadelica wrote: »

In regards to the SSM amendment it seems to me that the 'christian' element of the argument have succeeded in turning the debate away from the core issue of SSM and now are pushing the line of SS adoptions having equal status etc. This is not what the referendum is about, in the ballot box you are being asked a simple equality question, do gay same sex couples merit the same rights as hetero couples. Now please inform me without references to the bible or gospels as to who decided that marriage was strictly a man and woman exclusive, and if this is merely a religious concept surely the time has come to put it away.

But this potentially does involve SS adoptions. If being part of a couple is a factor in adoptions being granted then the SS mariage debate is just as much about SS adoption. As for the marriage being strictly between a man and a woman. Well it could be argued that to see it in another context was just an absurdity. And practically everybody saw it this way regardless of sexual orientation.
With regard to the religious context again this was just the way it was seen to copperfasten it. Even purely secular and humanist weddings perform "the ritual". So you can just as easily answer your questions as "Why do SS couples fell the need to be "married" at all?" Especially as a civil contract can fulfill the same leagal rights and obligations. Therefore the debate is more about ownership of the word marriage then the rights of the people involved.

hardybuck

Can heterosexual couples get a Civil Partnership?

Status Offline

hardybuck wrote: »

Can heterosexual couples get a Civil Partnership?

They can actually, but a civil partnership doesn't hold as many rights as a marriage. Legally, unless you're married in the eyes of the law, you don't have as many rights. Leave religious bull**** and people trying to use outdated definitions out of it , depriving people of the same sex partnerships of the same legal rights as opposite sex coulees is just plain morally wrong. I'm pretty far away from being christian but I'm sure if Jesus was real he wouldn't be behind discriminating against people regardless of their sexual orientation. It's pure ****ing craziness to think that a couple of lads or girls shacking up together is going to have any negative impact on society. Society and culture only grows through inclusion and evolution. Never has any good come from staying stationary and listening to impudent old men who want to preserve their definition of right and wrong.Love thy neighbor and all that.Also all the fisher men he hung around with weren't exactly the desirable of the time either...also I suppose he must have been some sort of guy to have 12 tough guys follow him to their deaths...and not a woman in sights.

fuzzy dunlop

Status Offline wrote: »

They can actually, but a civil partnership doesn't hold as many rights as a marriage. Legally, unless you're married in the eyes of the law, you don't have as many rights. Leave religious bull**** and people trying to use outdated definitions out of it , depriving people of the same sex partnerships of the same legal rights as opposite sex coulees is just plain morally wrong. I'm pretty far away from being christian but I'm sure if Jesus was real he wouldn't be behind discriminating against people regardless of their sexual orientation. It's pure ****ing craziness to think that a couple of lads or girls shacking up together is going to have any negative impact on society. Society and culture only grows through inclusion and evolution. Never has any good come from staying stationary and listening to impudent old men who want to preserve their definition of right and wrong.Love thy neighbor and all that.Also all the fisher men he hung around with weren't exactly the desirable of the time either...also I suppose he must have been some sort of guy to have 12 tough guys follow him to their deaths...and not a woman in sights.

Its amazing how many proponents of SSM are constitutionally incapable of discussing it without mentioning religion. Yet opponents are. Iona and the other religious groups are well capable and do just that. Some people don't seem to get that being a member or not being a member of Iona is of no consequence at all. Nor does the bill prevent anybody from "shacking up" together. I'm also not convinced hetero couples can get a civil partnership. It was my understanding that they can't.

http://www.thejournal.ie/civil-partnership-opposite-sex-couples-827630-Mar2013/

Status Offline

fuzzy dunlop wrote: »

Its amazing how many proponents of SSM are constitutionally incapable of discussing it without mentioning religion. Yet opponents are. Iona and the other religious groups are well capable and do just that. Some people don't seem to get that being a member or not being a member of Iona is of no consequence at all. Nor does the bill prevent anybody from "shacking up" together. I'm also not convinced hetero couples can get a civil partnership. It was my understanding that they can't.

http://www.thejournal.ie/civil-partnership-opposite-sex-couples-827630-Mar2013/

A civil marriage can constitute people living together for a certain amount of time or signing a civil partner ship.
Me and you could get a civil partnership depending on the country but it wouldn't mean that we were married. Generally the law, especially regarding inheritance , favors traditional marriage.From what I've heard civil partnerships aren't as effective for people getting their full rights after a partner dies. So, the way I look at it is that same sex couples should be entitled to the same tax breaks and legal entitlements as traditional couples are, otherwise it's just bigotry for bigotry's sake.Marriage after all is a legal contract, I only mention religion in the debate as it's normally the religious side which say that it's unnatural or against god or doesn't fit the "natural" definition of parenthood to aargur the matter. All of which is stupid as saying that two men or women can't agree on shared partnership in running a busines. We're al adults and should be allowed to choose our own paths and have the legal back up to do so.

fuzzy dunlop

Status Offline wrote: »

A civil marriage can constitute people living together for a certain amount of time or signing a civil partner ship.
Me and you could get a civil partnership depending on the country but it wouldn't mean that we were married. Generally the law, especially regarding inheritance , favors traditional marriage.From what I've heard civil partnerships aren't as effective for people getting their full rights after a partner dies. So, the way I look at it is that same sex couples should be entitled to the same tax breaks and legal entitlements as traditional couples are, otherwise it's just bigotry for bigotry's sake.Marriage after all is a legal contract, I only mention religion in the debate as it's normally the religious side which say that it's unnatural or against god or doesn't fit the "natural" definition of parenthood to aargur the matter. All of which is stupid as saying that two men or women can't agree on shared partnership in running a busines. We're al adults and should be allowed to choose our own paths and have the legal back up to do so.

This is not the case. Hetero couples cannot have a civil partnership in Ireland. What we can do in other countries is not the point. And as far as inheritance goes it is not the SS spouse that are discriminated against as far as I can see.It is the non-biological children of the spouse who dies who lose out. However I wonder if the referendum was presented in this way would the reaction be different? This is the main problem in these cases. Most people have no clue as to the actual issue because they cannot hear above hysterical noise and claims and counter claims on both sides. I would bet that a sizable amount of people on both sides would change their mind if they actually new what the relatively minor differences were. I also think there is the possibility of administration problems and affordability. In an ideal world this would not be the case but in reality there is if the definition of marriage and families goes too diverse.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/birth_family_relationships/civil_partnerships/civil_partnership_and_inheritance.html

hardybuck

Status Offline wrote: »

They can actually, but a civil partnership doesn't hold as many rights as a marriage. Legally, unless you're married in the eyes of the law, you don't have as many rights. Leave religious bull**** and people trying to use outdated definitions out of it , depriving people of the same sex partnerships of the same legal rights as opposite sex coulees is just plain morally wrong. I'm pretty far away from being christian but I'm sure if Jesus was real he wouldn't be behind discriminating against people regardless of their sexual orientation. It's pure ****ing craziness to think that a couple of lads or girls shacking up together is going to have any negative impact on society. Society and culture only grows through inclusion and evolution. Never has any good come from staying stationary and listening to impudent old men who want to preserve their definition of right and wrong.Love thy neighbor and all that.Also all the fisher men he hung around with weren't exactly the desirable of the time either...also I suppose he must have been some sort of guy to have 12 tough guys follow him to their deaths...and not a woman in sights.

Are you OK? That was a huge rambling comment to my very short question.

I've had a look this morning, an the answer is no. A hetero opposite sex couple can get a Civil Marriage but not s Civil Partnership. It is unconstitutional to extend some of the rights and obligations of marriage to those who have the option to avail of it but choose not to.

This has also been subject to legal challenge by heterosexual couples in the UK, but alas no equality has been extended to heterosexual couples.

S.O

Max Powers wrote: »

Had a quick read of that excerpt from the constitution, that whole section reads well out of date in these times...talking about 'women' in the home, outdated, plenty of dads being main carer now, women dont want to be pigeon holed as homemakers in the consitution etc etc.

Other parts are outdated in modern times, no disagreement from me there.

S.O

Gardner wrote: »

back on local issues. were 12 months out from a GE. who do you see Waterford returning?

i think in order:

John Deasy FG
John Halligan Ind
Mulligan/Walsh FF (Michael Walsh rumoured to be running for FF)
David Cullinane SF

Coffey and Conway to lose seats without doubt

John Deasy will be elected again.
John Halligan can also being elected a 2nd time.
Paudie Coffey I put a 50/50.
Ciara Conway will lost her seat
David Cullinane I can see getting a dail seat
Eddie Mulligan 50/50

With the amount of votes John Hearne got in the last years local elections, I can see Waterford SF standing both David Cullinane + John Hearne in the general election.

S.O

Besides the element of same sex adoptions regarding the upcoming referendum, the other element people need to think about also is the assisted human reproduction aspect for same sex couples, the following was reported as little as two months ago.

An international team of scientists have shown that it is possible to create
human sperm and eggs from stem cells derived from adult skin, regardless of the donor’s gender. While this breakthrough could help men and women who have been rendered infertile by disease, gay groups have also expressed hope that this project will eventually lead to the creation of children made from same-sex parents.

http://www.medicaldaily.com/stem-cell-breakthrough-opens-door-two-dad-babies-little-2-years-323350


What does the issue of assisted human reproduction for same sex couples have to do with the referendum someone might ask ?

Once again I refer to ARTICLE 41/ 3 1 of the irish constitution.

The State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of
Marriage, on which the Family is founded, and to protect it against attack.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/en/constitution/index.html#article41

If a yes vote passes on May 22nd, what quoted above is open to interpretation to open the door for assisted human reproduction for same sex couples, as it says

the Family is founded,

But ARTICLE 41/ 3 1 is not saying on how a family can or cannot be founded that is why it is open to interpretation.

wonderfulname

Guardianship rights and assisted reproduction are being legislated for in the dail, regardless of the outcome of the marriage referendum two men or two women will be able to avail of legal recognition as joint guardians of a child.

Even without the children and family relationships bill, or marriage equality, these families do and will exist, abet unrecognised.

Cabaal

guys, can we get back on topic here. Plenty of other threads discussing marriage equality and views on "familys" in far more appropriate forums then the Waterford forum.

Taxburden carrier

Back on track.
What , if any, positive contribution have any of the current four TDs made to justify being returned next year.

Max Powers

I think its odd that Paudie COffey is seen as the dodgy to get reelected / not effective when compared to Deasy. I would imagine, any good stuff that FG have done in Waterford has in the most part being because of him. I admire Deasy on his bluntness etc but in reality, not many people in power are gonna do much for him when he is not in bed with the power. Obvioulsy, that is attractive to the voter, a bit of a maverick etc but do we want mavericks who cannot get anything done for Waterford. (im not saying Deasy hasnt done anything for Waterford, he is vocal on airport and couple of other things). I would vote for Coffey before Deasy myself, he has more seniority than Deasy and more likely to have the Taoiseachs ear than anyone of our other candidates.

wellboytoo

I agree on Coffey over Deasy completely, Maybe Waterford Inc should grow up in this election and vote strategically , like what is the best vote for Waterford ?
Who is most likely to be in power in the next Government and which local candidate is most likely to get their feet under the table?
In my book that is Coffey first and possibly a Renua candidate and absolutely no one after that.
I would find it difficult to vote FG after what they have done to Waterford but it maybe the best punt with your vote.
SF is a waste of a vote as they themselves state they will not go into coalition with anybody, so they will not be in Government , John Halligan ditto but may have some power in the technical grouping.
FF continue to wallow nationally and locally with no sign of them surging ahead and no sign of a strong local candidate with ministerial attributes .

7upfree

Max Powers wrote: »

I would imagine, any good stuff that FG have done in Waterford has in the most part being because of him.

This "good stuff" being???????????

wellboytoo

7upfree wrote: »

This "good stuff" being???????????

Fire station, New court house, Educate together school, Gael scoil, Viking Triangle, Tramore School, Seven sewage treatment plants around the county. Search and rescue training school Tramore, that's just off the top of my head, but give me a while.........

Max Powers

wellboytoo wrote: »

Fire station, New court house, Educate together school, Gael scoil, Viking Triangle, Tramore School, Seven sewage treatment plants around the county. Search and rescue training school Tramore, that's just off the top of my head, but give me a while.........

yeah to be fair, your right, if we are gonna lambaste them when they do bad, which they often do, we should say, well you didnt do too bad there Mister/Ms TD if something positive does happen

hardybuck

In fairness I think Waterford is generally in better shape than it was in 2010/11.

A lot of people would be involved in such projects, so very hard to single out individuals.

7upfree

wellboytoo wrote: »

Fire station, New court house, Educate together school, Gael scoil, Viking Triangle, Tramore School, Seven sewage treatment plants around the county. Search and rescue training school Tramore, that's just off the top of my head, but give me a while.........

Wow! Such achievements. Most of what you list was already started/prepped before this Government took office, so forgive me for not getting over excited.

Lest we forget:

* No WU - an abomination being proposed and railroaded through by Paudie's Government.

* Hospital downgraded.

* City Status downgraded.

* Airport neglected.

* VEC gone to Wexford.

and that's just off the top of my head.

But - hey - as long as we get excited over a new sewage plant we must be doing well as a City compared to the other four. Oh, wait..........

wellboytoo

7upfree wrote: »

Wow! Such achievements. Most of what you list was already started/prepped before this Government took office, so forgive me for not getting over excited.

Lest we forget:

* No WU - an abomination being proposed and railroaded through by Paudie's Government.

* Hospital downgraded.

* City Status downgraded.

* Airport neglected.

* VEC gone to Wexford.

and that's just off the top of my head.

But - hey - as long as we get excited over a new sewage plant we must be doing well as a City compared to the other four. Oh, wait..........

It's called perspective you choose half empty and whereas I actually agree with a lot of your points I in this post chose to point out the good things that were done as You requested.
don't ask the question if you don't want to hear the answer.

7upfree

wellboytoo wrote: »

It's called perspective you chose half empty and whereas I actually agree with a lot if your points I in this post chose to point out the good things that were done as You requested.
don't ask the question if you don't want to hear the answer.

We're a lot closer than you think. But this City has been treated abysmally under this Government. It really and truly has. Only City without a full Minister.

wellboytoo

7upfree wrote: »

We're a lot closer than you think. But this City has been treated abysmally under this Government. It really and truly has. Only City without a full Minister.

Agreed 7up but the logic of my post on who we probably should vote for is still true, as much as it sticks in our craw!
Jasus I sound like Spock

7upfree

wellboytoo wrote: »

Agreed 7up but the logic of my post on who we probably should vote for is still true, as much as it sticks in our craw!
Jasus I sound like Spock

They've been an unmitigated disaster WB2. I foresee a very hung Dáil in 2016 and a strong, Independent Candidate (or two) for Waterford.

fuzzy dunlop

wellboytoo wrote: »

It's called perspective you choose half empty and whereas I actually agree with a lot of your points I in this post chose to point out the good things that were done as You requested.
don't ask the question if you don't want to hear the answer.

Well you might want to rethink your perspective. We have lost a lot more than we gained. The Viking Triangle funding was obtained prior to the last election when Cullen was minister for Tourism. The fire station was in the pipe line for a long time as was the court house. The hospital has been downgraded despite the name change (zilch funding) and the city council is gone as was the VEC. The WIT is being prepared for the same treatment No amount of positive thinking can justify how this city has been savaged.

7upfree

fuzzy dunlop wrote: »

Well you might want to rethink your perspective. We have lost a lot more than we gained. The Viking Triangle funding was obtained prior to the last election when Cullen was minister for Tourism. The fire station was in the pipe line for a long time as was the court house. The hospital has been downgraded despite the name change (zilch funding) and the city council is gone as was the VEC. The WIT is being prepared for the same treatment No amount of positive thinking can justify how this city has been savaged.

Well said Fuzzy. Agree 100%.