Off Topic Thread 4.0

Neil3030

Bazzo wrote: »

I had an elderly gentleman tell me in work the other day that "You Irish need to stop being so obnoxious about this little border issue"

Let's all cross our fingers for a cold winter, and a second referendum in March.

Mookie Blaylock

http://waterfordwhispersnews.com/2016/03/30/kexit-what-it-will-mean-if-kerry-leaves-ireland/

Not their best effort...but still !

swiwi_

errlloyd wrote: »

Just saw a lad get his jacket stolen in Rathmines McDonalds. Some drunk guy just picked it up and walked away as if it was his. The guy was just standing there in an ROI Jersey with a green scarf contemplating walking home in the freezing cold and I felt so sorry for him.

Chances are he's never gonna get his money back, his whole evening was ruined, his faith in Ireland is probably diminished. And after all that he left the Aviva, went to get a McDonalds and some lad stole his jacket.

Were you tempted to, you know, go and take the jacket back off the drunk guy or alert security...or was he a mean looking knife wielding type of drunk guy?

Squidgy Black

swiwi_ wrote: »

Were you tempted to, you know, go and take the jacket back off the drunk guy or alert security...or was he a mean looking knife wielding type of drunk guy?

Whoooooooosh.

errlloyd

swiwi_ wrote: »

Were you tempted to, you know, go and take the jacket back off the drunk guy or alert security...or was he a mean looking knife wielding type of drunk guy?

We actually did get back in the end (but that would have ruined the joke).

Himself, his friend, myself and a member of staff stepped in!

swiwi_

I don’t get it

errlloyd

swiwi_ wrote: »

I don’t get it

So what I was trying to do was tell the story of a guy who got his jacket stolen in McDonalds, but suggest at the end that the real injustice he had suffered that night was going to watch the Ireland football team slump to a turgid 0-1 loss to Wales at home - and that losing his jacket had merely added insult to injury.

swiwi_

swiwi_ wrote: »

I don’t get it

Errlloyd juxtaposed the annoyance of being robbed with the frustration of Ireland's performance. It's a simple bait and switch gag!

Think you need to sign up for this class :

swiwi_

Ah yeah ok. Definitely more success following the Irish rugby team these days. I think Ireland are worse than NZ at soccer which tells you all you need to know!

wp_rathead

Watching the debate..
What even is Peter Casey at...

DGRulz

wp_rathead wrote: »

Watching the debate..
What even is Peter Casey at...

I jumped in and out but from what I saw Casey was slinging mud the entire time, seemed a little Trump like. Guy seems a little bit like a meme. Unfortunately I've heard people in work this morning talking about how great he is now.

Squidgy Black

DGRulz wrote: »

I jumped in and out but from what I saw Casey was slinging mud the entire time, seemed a little Trump like. Guy seems a little bit like a meme. Unfortunately I've heard people in work this morning talking about how great he is now.

He's taking inspiration from Trump for sure. Making the bold statements that the working class and even a lot of the middle class want to hear. His comments about the Travelling community sparked uproar, but if you ever see an article on The Journal, or a Facebook post about similar stories you'll see a raft of comments echoing the same sentiment.

Buer

People need to realise there is a significant element of society who agree with those sentiments. But, given they're not as acceptable publicly, they will not state them outwardly by and large. If Casey gives them a vehicle to hitch their opinions to, they will.

I am always taken aback by the fact that people are taken aback by such opinions. Not everyone will share the same ideas or thoughts. They'll have had different experiences that shape their views on the world. Fortunately, we live in a fairly liberal society so even those who are right wing (by Irish definition) would be viewed as blatant left wing supporters elsewhere in the world.

I was at Dave Chapelle and Jon Stewart last night and I thought it was interesting when someone asked for Chapelle's views on Trump. He said he's fairly sure he'll get a second term. There was a collective intake of breath from the audience and murmuring of disapproval at such a thought. It was as if they associate Chapelle stating such a thing as somehow endorsing Trump. But he hit the nail on the head. He said the Democrats still haven't figured out any way to damage him or his support base after 2 years in office and, as the incumbent, he's in the driving seat. Power begets power. It struck me as relevant in terms of how people view Peter Casey and the confirmation bias bubble that some people tend to exist in. Just because I/you don't agree with his views, doesn't mean there aren't many who do.

For the record, Casey doesn't have a sniff of getting into the Aras but he's definitely running a better campaign than 2 or 3 others at this point despite probably having the lowest public profile of any candidate before the nominations.

thomond2006

Watching last night, the only way Michael D loses is if those expenses are indeed questionable.

Squidgy Black

Can they please stop debating the expenses of the dogs haircuts.

They're lovely woofers and they deserve it, I gladly let them spend my taxes for that.

thomond2006

I've been thinking for a good while now that we're no more immune to a Trump or Brexit style event than anyone else. Our system of voting insulates us from a lot but populism with fascist undertones is becoming more and more widespread and it's going to raise it's head here.

Casey doesn't have a hope truth be told. Higgins could run an awful campaign and he'll still get twice as many votes as the next person.

thomond2006 wrote: »

Watching last night, the only way Michael D loses is if those expenses are indeed questionable.

I reckon they could come out and be questionable and he'd still win handy. No one of any standing or credibility has run this year, not worth it against such a popular incumbent.

connemara man

Squidgy Black wrote: »

Can they please stop debating the expenses of the dogs haircuts.

They're lovely woofers and they deserve it, I gladly let them spend my taxes for that.

And he pays for them out of his own wages/fund not as an extra expense

Buer

Deleted User wrote: »

I reckon they could come out and be questionable and he'd still win handy. No one of any standing or credibility has run this year, not worth it against such a popular incumbent.

He could go to Ibiza for the next 8 days and be photographed doing shots and yokes before returning home to be sworn in with a minimum of 50% of the vote. It's the most pointless election in my life time.

It's nicely being run hand in hand with the most pointless referendum in our time too.

Podge_irl

Buer wrote: »

He could go to Ibiza for the next 8 days and be photographed doing shots and yokes before returning home to be sworn in with a minimum of 50% of the vote. It's the most pointless election in my life time.

It's nicely being run hand in hand with the most pointless referendum in our time too.

Ah, the referendum was needed. It just needed to be bundled in with other amendments as well to make it more worthwhile.

And for all the pointlessness of the election, I wasn't a huge fan of McAleese getting in for a second term unopposed. The optics are just poor.

Podge_irl

Podge_irl wrote: »

Ah, the referendum was needed. It just needed to be bundled in with other amendments as well to make it more worthwhile.

And for all the pointlessness of the election, I wasn't a huge fan of McAleese getting in for a second term unopposed. The optics are just poor.

I think this shows why the optics of that were misleading. This election is poor, you've really only one credible candidate, two other semi-credible candidates but with some unpleasant baggage and then a bunch of the most egotistical chancers the country can produce.

I'd rather there was no contest than this contest and the headlines from Casey's outbursts demonstrate why.

kuang1

For the first time since turning 18, I will not be evercising my right to vote.
Taking 20 minutes out of my Friday to contribute to this is not something I can justify.

I've rearranged work schedules and babysitters etc in the past to facilitate me using my vote, it's normally something I feel quite strongly (patriotic?) about, but this drivel is a stretch too far.
The amendment tempted me slightly, but that could end up being a record breaking % outcome.
And as for "oh if everyone thought like that then there might be a surprise outcome... You should always use your vote..." I'd normally agree. Just doesn't apply this time round.

Buer

I will attend but am considering deliberately spoiling my record to note my view on the election.

Squidgy Black

kuang1 wrote: »

For the first time since turning 18, I will not be evercising my right to vote.
Taking 20 minutes out of my Friday to contribute to this is not something I can justify.

I've rearranged work schedules and babysitters etc in the past to facilitate me using my vote, it's normally something I feel quite strongly (patriotic?) about, but this drivel is a stretch too far.
The amendment tempted me slightly, but that could end up being a record breaking % outcome.
And as for "oh if everyone thought like that then there might be a surprise outcome... You should always use your vote..." I'd normally agree. Just doesn't apply this time round.

I mean, everyone in America said the same about their Presidential election.

kuang1

Squidgy Black wrote: »

I mean, everyone in America said the same about their Presidential election.

Easy go-to argument.
They weren't predicting 80% outcomes in advance.

Squidgy Black

kuang1 wrote: »

Easy go-to argument.
They weren't predicting 80% outcomes in advance.

Not really arguing, just saying. And plenty were predicting Hilary to have a 70%+ outcome.

kuang1

kuang1 wrote: »

For the first time since turning 18, I will not be evercising my right to vote.
Taking 20 minutes out of my Friday to contribute to this is not something I can justify.

I've rearranged work schedules and babysitters etc in the past to facilitate me using my vote, it's normally something I feel quite strongly (patriotic?) about, but this drivel is a stretch too far.
The amendment tempted me slightly, but that could end up being a record breaking % outcome.
And as for "oh if everyone thought like that then there might be a surprise outcome... You should always use your vote..." I'd normally agree. Just doesn't apply this time round.

A low turnout sends it's own kind of message though. Some elections lack importance whilst others can be quite literally life and death.

I don't view my vote in the context of how important the issue is to me, I view my vote in the context of how important it is that I have a vote to begin with.

From my perspective voting is a part of the agreement that we all have collectively within society so I'd very strongly encourage you to go and vote simply because your franchise is still important even if the subject matter is not.

Buer

Squidgy Black wrote: »

Not really arguing, just saying. And plenty were predicting Hilary to have a 70%+ outcome.

I'm pretty sure 70% would have been the widest margin of victory in the history of the POTUS by a huge distance.

Polls had the election tipped for Clinton in advance but nothing close to 70%. The pre-election polls had her ahead by single digit percentage points at best.

Squidgy Black

Buer wrote: »

I'm pretty sure 70% would have been the widest margin of victory in the history of the POTUS by a huge distance.

Polls had the election tipped for Clinton in advance but nothing close to 70%. The pre-election polls had her ahead by single digit percentage points at best.

I don't really know politics stuff can we get back to talking about Miggeldy's dogs.

irishbucsfan

Squidgy Black wrote: »

Not really arguing, just saying. And plenty were predicting Hilary to have a 70%+ outcome.

Who was?

kuang1

[Deleted User] wrote: »

A low turnout sends it's own kind of message though. Some elections lack importance whilst others can be quite literally life and death.

I don't view my vote in the context of how important the issue is to me, I view my vote in the context of how important it is that I have a vote to begin with.

From my perspective voting is a part of the agreement that we all have collectively within society so I'd very strongly encourage you to go and vote simply because your franchise is still important even if the subject matter is not.

Like Buer, I also considered spoiling my vote. I've never done that before.
But as you said, low turnout does make it's own statement. That's the one I'm weighing in behind.

You're often quite definite on your stances and you've clearly put proper thought into them. You articulate them well.
This particular one is a bit too idyllic for me to back you up on though.

Rigor Mortis

kuang1 wrote: »

For the first time since turning 18, I will not be evercising my right to vote.
Taking 20 minutes out of my Friday to contribute to this is not something I can justify.

I've rearranged work schedules and babysitters etc in the past to facilitate me using my vote, it's normally something I feel quite strongly (patriotic?) about, but this drivel is a stretch too far.
The amendment tempted me slightly, but that could end up being a record breaking % outcome.
And as for "oh if everyone thought like that then there might be a surprise outcome... You should always use your vote..." I'd normally agree. Just doesn't apply this time round.

I cant get behind this. Not least because there is a referendum on the same day. The legitimacy of the office of the President is important. As is the publics say in determining the content of our Constitution. It's 20 minutes. It happens on average once every 18 months or so. We all have commitments but not giving enough of a damn isnt a commitment.

kuang1

kuang1 wrote: »

Like Buer, I also considered spoiling my vote. I've never done that before.
But as you said, low turnout does make it's own statement. That's the one I'm weighing in behind.

You're often quite definite on your stances and you've clearly put proper thought into them. You articulate them well.
This particular one is a bit too idyllic for me to back you up on though.

At the end of the day, it's your vote and you can exercise that right as you wish.

I'd be a bit absolutist about it though, I think every time you fail to vote you are one step closer to losing that right in the future.

This has in fact become reality elsewhere. In some US states that's become the law - the 'use it or lose it' rationale which I think originated in Ohio and ended up being affirmed by the Supreme Court.

Consistent low turnout rings the dinner bell for groups that thrive on apathy.

kuang1

Rigor Mortis wrote: »

I cant get behind this. Not least because there is a referendum on the same day. The legitimacy of the office of the President is important. As is the publics say in determining the content of our Constitution. It's 20 minutes. It happens on average once every 18 months or so. We all have commitments but not giving enough of a damn isnt a commitment.

Fair enough. You have a different opinion than me on this. That's ok.
Although can't quite get my head around your last sentence?

stephen_n

Buer wrote: »

People need to realise there is a significant element of society who agree with those sentiments. But, given they're not as acceptable publicly, they will not state them outwardly by and large. If Casey gives them a vehicle to hitch their opinions to, they will.

I am always taken aback by the fact that people are taken aback by such opinions. Not everyone will share the same ideas or thoughts. They'll have had different experiences that shape their views on the world. Fortunately, we live in a fairly liberal society so even those who are right wing (by Irish definition) would be viewed as blatant left wing supporters elsewhere in the world.

I was at Dave Chapelle and Jon Stewart last night and I thought it was interesting when someone asked for Chapelle's views on Trump. He said he's fairly sure he'll get a second term. There was a collective intake of breath from the audience and murmuring of disapproval at such a thought. It was as if they associate Chapelle stating such a thing as somehow endorsing Trump. But he hit the nail on the head. He said the Democrats still haven't figured out any way to damage him or his support base after 2 years in office and, as the incumbent, he's in the driving seat. Power begets power. It struck me as relevant in terms of how people view Peter Casey and the confirmation bias bubble that some people tend to exist in. Just because I/you don't agree with his views, doesn't mean there aren't many who do.

For the record, Casey doesn't have a sniff of getting into the Aras but he's definitely running a better campaign than 2 or 3 others at this point despite probably having the lowest public profile of any candidate before the nominations.

My first thoughts when reading it yesterday was that’s stupid and abhorrent. My next thought was to text it to my brother who would utterly agree with every word he said.

Mookie Blaylock

Buer wrote: »

He could go to Ibiza for the next 8 days and be photographed doing shots and yokes before returning home to be sworn in with a minimum of 50% of the vote. It's the most pointless election in my life time.

It's nicely being run hand in hand with the most pointless referendum in our time too.

He'd probably win by a larger margin!

thomond2006

Buer wrote: »

He could go to Ibiza for the next 8 days and be photographed doing shots and yokes before returning home to be sworn in with a minimum of 50% of the vote.

Any way this can be made happen? :pac:

CatFromHue

Higgins got 40% 1st preference last time, Gallagher 29%. It finished overall Higgins 57% and Gallagher 36%.

Considering what scuppered Gallagher big time last time has turned out to be false I don't think Higgins is going to romp it home.

I don't think Gallagher will be the only competition, Freeman and Duffy could do well.

CatFromHue

CatFromHue wrote: »

Higgins got 40% 1st preference last time, Gallagher 29%. It finished overall Higgins 57% and Gallagher 36%.

Considering what scuppered Gallagher big time last time has turned out to be false I don't think Higgins is going to romp it home.

I don't think Gallagher will be the only competition, Freeman and Duffy could do well.

Gallagher has done nothing to progress his case in the intervening 7 years bar taking a significant chunk of cash out of the national broadcaster.

He has lost a lot of momentum and positivity around his campaign, he won't get anything close to that 36% this time.

CatFromHue

Maybe so but I don't think Higgins is as loved as people think he is.

He's also 77

awec

Higgins is the incumbent. He’ll win by a landslide.

stephen_n

CatFromHue wrote: »

Maybe so but I don't think Higgins is as loved as people think he is.

He's also 77

He doesn’t need to be loved, he just needs to not be hated. In general Irish people go for the devil they know.

Zzippy

CatFromHue wrote: »

Maybe so but I don't think Higgins is as loved as people think he is.

He's also 77

Michael D is still by far the best candidate. The president (a largely ceremonial role that represents Ireland) has very little power to dictate policy but can set the tone of the national debate with an eloquent speech, or build bridges between communities through outreach. None of the other candidates seem to understand this, with all their talk of what they would do to address homelessness, unemployment, poverty, etc. Like **** they would, they would have no power and no permission from the government to get involved in those issues.

For me it is an office that should be reserved for someone with a long record of public service, advocacy or charity work, someone who has been involved in campaigning on issues of public importance. Being successful in business is not a qualification for the office. If Sean Gallagher really wanted to be president, he could have spent the last 7 years doing some of the above. Where was he during the referendum campaigns on gay marriage and the 8th amendment? What was he doing to address the homelessness crisis?

Michael D has been campaigning on social issues since the 1960s. He campaigned on women's rights, contraception, divorce, abortion, homelessness, gay rights - you name it he has been involved. He has been a champion of the arts. He is an eloquent speaker who is able to reach people in a way that none of the other candidates have shown they can. For me, he has made a huge contribution to Irish society and is the only candidate worth a vote.

irishbucsfan

Sounds like Peter Casey is gone anyway. Bye now, best of luck.

dregin

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Sounds like Peter Casey is gone anyway. Bye now, best of luck.

Ya sure he isn't looking to drum up noise over the weekend by playing the martyr just to pick up the mantel again on Monday like some sort of hero of those downtrodden by the PC police?

Squidgy Black

I don't know why he'd drop out a week before the polling stations open.

errlloyd

Squidgy Black wrote: »

I don't know why he'd drop out a week before the polling stations open.

He doesn't want to be an alt right candidate.

I've had more than a few really negative experiences with the travelling community. One in particular involved being being robbed in a shop at knife point.

I've also been on a national team with a member of the travelling community, was friendly with two members of his family and wouldn't have a bad word said about them.

I can understand completely why people have issues with travellers. I can't understand at all why our general intolerance of prejudice in Ireland is so easily swept aside when dealing with a subset of society. Whilst a lot of the anger is justified, I think people should also recognise that using that as a stick to beat an entire group is going to make things worse in the future - not better.

It's a really difficult situation and it's a challenging problem to rectify. Casey did nothing but make things worse however and I hope he recognises that.

CatFromHue

Gallagher was polling to win it last time but fell apart after what happened with Pat Kenny, so as I said I'm not sure people love Michael D as much as some think.

I mostly agree with all you said Zippy regarding the position and requirements but I'd vote for someone like Feargal Quinn ahead of the vast vast vast majority of politicians and career politicians, and yes I do know he was a senator.

I'm not too keen on reserving the position for some one with a long record of public service as I feel that sometimes that leads to people getting positions in reward for something as opposed to earning it out right i.e. how some senators get their spot in the Seanad.

irishbucsfan

Feargail Quinn

Dave_The_Sheep

My aul lad, before he retired, was a fairly senior civil servant who had to deal with PQs and also Senatorial questions regularly, and his opinion of Quinn was ... not complimentary. Never, maybe rarely to be nice to him, asked questions in his senate capacity, and when he did it was marginalised to his own interest, example opposing the plastic bag levy (If it wasn't related to his business, no ****s were given. Entirely in it for himself, much like many Senators). I've not met the man, but it correlates with a few other stories I've heard about him.

For the craic though, I decided to check his wiki page, and the user responsible for the latest edits on his page (several times) has also edited a lot of Irish political figure pages, including Duffy, Casey, Gallagher, McGuirk, and Ni Riada, as well as few entries on Ministers of State and members of the Oireachtas. Nothing on Higgins. To be fair, most of the edits were inconsequential. Jesus, I'm bored.