Exit poll: The post referendum thread. No electioneering.

c68zapdsm5i1ru

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

So why are you so upset then? :pac:

Why do you think I'm upset?

c68zapdsm5i1ru

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

nobody is stopping you from saying anything. In the same vein there is nothing stopping us mocking the same nonsense that didnt fool the electorate. Your opinions are not precious. They are open to ridicule.

What opinions?

Trasna1

ELM327 wrote: »

I hope you reported him for electoral fraud so.
If he is ineligible he should have informed the relevant council

He didn't vote.

Timberrrrrrrr

Mavis Some Insignia wrote: »

Why do you think I'm upset?

Forget it


You're not worth the bother.

c68zapdsm5i1ru

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Forget it


You're not worth the bother.

Nicely evaded.

robarmstrong

Mavis Some Insignia wrote: »

The notion from some that anyone who voted No has now got no right to an opinion is ludicrous. We lost this referendum, we didn't lose our right to free speech.

You're absolutely entitled to an opinion.

You are absolutely not entitled to come onto a thread and whine incessantly over menial things, NO was beaten soundly, by a landslide, despite all the lies and horrific things the campaign came out with.

Accept it, move on. It's absolutely pointless coming on nitpicking at things, to use a football analogy - NO United were beaten 2:1 despite all the attempts at foul play, yet their "fans" come on and complain that some of the players of the opposition team shouldn't have been there because ah sure they don't live there. It is an absolute trivial thing to be getting riled up over it.

ohnonotgmail

Mavis Some Insignia wrote: »

What opinions?

pretty much all of yours.

Billy86

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

As I have said in my original post in this thread I have suffered my far share of physical pain and I got over it.

So because you injured yourself at some point before, women should have to go through unwanted pregnancies, including in circumstances like incest and rape?

Like I said, it's not a good look nor something to try and claim the moral high ground over, as you are.

By voting no I thought I was contributing to the greater good - I don't really know what else you expect me to do as a voter.

What happened to it being because you didn't like a yes campaigner? As you said "I was veering slightly towards yes (savita case in particular), when a conversation with a yes campaigner(at the door) made me a definite no!"

However assuming that you were indeed voting no before having a disagreement with someone, what is this greater good? Forcing women to go through pregnancies they do not want and that could quite often be dangerous for them, while contributing absolutely nothing back in return or in terms of assistance? It's just offering others up for sacrifice and trying to claim some kind of credit for it.

As I said before are you going to help perform abortions because you voted yes?

If I volunteered myself to a doctor who performs abortions, I would be told no as I have no qualifications; you know this.

However, I do work with disadvantaged and at-risk children in my job and outside of it. Every day I see the results of these unwanted pregnancies. Parents with drug problems (often developed during unwanted pregnancies, as heroin seems to kill the pain of carrying your rapists' offspring), children left neglected and born with huge disabilities causing them to become suicidal except for the fact that they are too physically incapacitated to do it themselves. Imagine spending every minute of your life just hoping you were dead, but not even being able to kill yourself.

I see the children shunted from foster home to foster home, creating massive mental health issues early in their lives about why nobody wants them. I see the children sent into residential group homes. I see these children written off from before they're old enough to ride a bicycle as "the scum of the earth" despite having done nothing but be born into horrendous circumstances. I see these children progress to Oberstown. I see these kids move on from Oberstown to a life of homelessness, addiction, crime and prison. Just the other week I got to see my first 'full cycle' case, where a kid we had in care has now given birth to another child who will inevitably wind up in care... and it's a suspected rape baby from a family friend. Just nine months of a few little pains though, right? Sure she's all of 15 years old, she'll barely even remember the whole thing by the end of the summer.

That newborn child is almost surely not getting adopted by the way, especially when there is such a shortage of adoptive and foster parents that the odds were heavily against them from the moment they were born. They'll get bounced around from one group home to another, back to mammy, back away from mammy, with the grandparents, back to strangers, and so on and so on... and somewhere in the early 2030's it's extremely likely they'll be having a child of their own to add to the mix. We did a fostering drive about two months ago across much of the south Dublin area, trying to get more people involved in fostering. Do you know how many people got back? Six. Six people got back.

Yet you seem not only fine for that to be the case, but to also try and consider yourself virtuous for looking to keep that in place, because not only did you injure yourself before, but you also didn't like someone who called to your door. I would advise you to put a bit more thought in, in future.

You know what I don't see? No campaigners trying to offer assistance, nor will from almost any no voters so eagerly virtue signalling about 'the greater good' to give any help whatsoever. A lot of companies do offer assistance, from the ones specifically there to help these children, to others that quietly offer funding, facilities or supports and ask for no thanks for it. Yet the likes of Iona or LoveBoth? We never heard a peep from them that I am aware of. It would have been a great PR move for them to do during the campaign, but I can tell you if they did we certainly didn't hear a thing from it here - and we work in child protection. Maybe now that the campaign is over they will focus their efforts into assisting parents and children in these situations, but let's be real here - we all know that is extremely unlikely at best.

These are often the people that cannot get to the UK for abortions because they cannot afford to, or are underage hiding the likes of rape babies from their families and being terrified for every moment of it as to what to do. Many of them don't have a clue about the pills at all, as they often barely attended school if at all as children and are often barely literate (again, if at all). By voting yes so overwhelmingly as a nation, we have now hopefully given these women and children and actual avenue out to assist with. Yet you not only voted to not allow them this opportunity, but added to that are not bothered anything in return, and are somehow trying to claim a "greater good" from this? It beggars belief, to be honest.

If you want to contribute to there being more disadvantaged, neglected, unwanted and abused children in the world you could at least do something to help them. You do not need to be highly qualified to assist in these areas, or to be qualified at all depending on how you wish to contribute. I would strongly encourage you to put your money where your mouth is about creating a greater good in this country.

c68zapdsm5i1ru

robarmstrong wrote: »

You're absolutely entitled to an opinion.

You are absolutely not entitled to come onto a thread and whine incessantly over menial things, NO was beaten soundly, by a landslide, despite all the lies and horrific things the campaign came out with.

Accept it, move on. It's absolutely pointless coming on nitpicking at things, to use a football analogy - NO United were beaten 2:1 despite all the attempts at foul play, yet their "fans" come on and complain that some of the players of the opposition team shouldn't have been there because ah sure they don't live there. It is an absolute trivial thing to be getting riled up over it.

I have not been 'whining incessantly over menial things'. I have joined in an existing discussion on illegal voting. That is a valid discussion and if you don't like it, tough.

robarmstrong

Mavis Some Insignia wrote: »

I have not been 'whining incessantly over menial things'. I have joined in an existing discussion on illegal voting. That is a valid discussion and if you don't like it, tough.

YES won, NO didn't, that is a valid result and if you don't like it, tough.



Wow!

Doctor Jimbob

Mavis Some Insignia wrote: »

I have not been 'whining incessantly over menial things'. I have joined in an existing discussion on illegal voting. That is a valid discussion and if you don't like it, tough.

Perhaps those who feel so strongly about illegal voting should open a thread on it. It's completely irrelevant to the discussion here, as it had no bearing whatsoever on the outcome of the referendum.

c68zapdsm5i1ru

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

pretty much all of yours.

Well, I don't agree with most of your opinions either. But fortunately for you, I've been far more mannerly on this and the previous thread than you have been. Basically because I've viewed it as a debate about an important issue, and not some kind of childish point scoring exercise.

There have been so many Yes voters on here who discussed, listened, disagreed politely, were informative and interesting. Sadly, you were not one of them.

c68zapdsm5i1ru

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

If you feel so strongly about illegal voting, perhaps you should open a thread on it. It's completely irrelevant to the doscussion here, as it had no bearing whatsoever on the outcome of the referendum.

As I said, that discussion was ongoing and I simply joined in.

facehugger99

kunst nugget wrote: »

I think we need to reform the electoral process and look at maybe giving a postal vote for ex-pats who want to be involved in voting in the country of their birth.

If you're not living here, paying taxes or subject to our legislation, you most certainly shouldn't be getting a say in how the country is governed or how the constitution is amended.

I find the idea of giving people a voice, when they are not subject to the consequences, deeply troubling.

c68zapdsm5i1ru

robarmstrong wrote: »

YES won, NO didn't, that is a valid result and if you don't like it, tough.



Wow!

That doesn't even make sense.

Anyhow, back to work.

Doctor Jimbob

Mavis Some Insignia wrote: »

As I said, that discussion was ongoing and I simply joined in.

Fair point, post edited to not single you out.

Cupcake_Crisis

Lets assume that everyone who came home to vote voted no- it still would have been a yes victory. That’s how big the difference was.

Christ, what stick would you beat it with then?

nozzferrahhtoo

facehugger99 wrote: »

I find the idea of giving people a voice, when they are not subject to the consequences, deeply troubling.

I better stop campaigning on rights and issues related to animals, minorities, the homeless, women, children, students, homosexuals, sex workers and more then. Given I am none of these things and am not likely to be.

facehugger99

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I better stop campaigning on rights and issues related to animals, minorities, the homeless, women, children, students, homosexuals, sex workers and more then. Given I am none of these things and am not likely to be.

False equivalence but wonderful virtue-signaling nonetheless.

robarmstrong

Mavis Some Insignia wrote: »

That doesn't even make sense.

Anyhow, back to work.

How does the NO side losing the campaign not make sense?

Must be still traumatized at all these "healthy babies being aborted by healthy mothers" sweeping statement you made in the previous thread about, yano, the thread where you dodged being put on the spot by me here - https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=107066141&postcount=1480

kunst nugget

facehugger99 wrote: »

If you're not living here, paying taxes or subject to our legislation, you most certainly shouldn't be getting a say in how the country is governed or how the constitution is amended.

I find the idea of giving people a voice, when they are not subject to the consequences, deeply troubling.

The UK and US both allow voting from their citizens living abroad for a certain period (up to 15 years for the UK) as long as you remain a citizen. I'd have no issue with that sort of system and it would be better than the wishy washy system in place at the moment.

nozzferrahhtoo

facehugger99 wrote: »

False equivalence but wonderful virtue-signaling nonetheless.

Except it is neither of those two things. You said you were disturbed by people having a voice on issues that do not affect them. They are all issues that do not affect me. Yet I both have and use my voice in relation to them.

So I am not seeing your problem really. Nor are buzz word dodges likely to explain it to me.

Trasna1

robarmstrong wrote: »

YES won, NO didn't, that is a valid result and if you don't like it, tough.



Wow!

No one is questioning the validity of the result. There was not voter fraud an a monumental scale that would invalidate it.

But there was some voter fraud, hometovote was a large part of that. It is not sour grapes to point this out.

Had the vote been close, where home to vote led to the vote being challenged, I wonder what you'd think of them them. Abuse is easy to ignore when it helps your cause.

.......

This post has been deleted.

nozzferrahhtoo

Trasna1 wrote: »

But there was some voter fraud, hometovote was a large part of that.

To validly make this claim you would need two pieces of data, neither of which I suspect you of actually having. Namely 1) How many people returned home and actually voted illegally and 2) How many of them would have done so anyway with or without the specific "hometovote" movement.

Without those two pieces of data, you are left merely making assumptions.

robarmstrong

I was going to answer you Trasna but Nozz and ...... have pretty much written what I was about to say, sorry.

Justin Credible Darts

It still makes me smile seeing the anger, bitterness and seething by the no brigade who cannot accept what the people of Ireland wanted and voted for.

Their actions since has only reinforced my opinion that the mentality among a lot of the no voters is gladly something that is dying out, specifically since most of those hard line bitter ones are the old and brainwashed.

Fighting Tao

Trasna1 wrote: »

No one is questioning the validity of the result. There was not voter fraud an a monumental scale that would invalidate it.

But there was some voter fraud, hometovote was a large part of that. It is not sour grapes to point this out.

Had the vote been close, where home to vote led to the vote being challenged, I wonder what you'd think of them them. Abuse is easy to ignore when it helps your cause.

There were organised home to votes from the No side too. https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/abortion-referendum/i-would-walk-home-from-timbuktu-to-vote-meet-the-young-people-who-are-travelling-hometovote-36920920.html You may want to cast aspersions to the No side too!

The Legend Of Kira

DubInMeath wrote: »

Is this the same survey the pro life campaign organised and published the results of on their site also, or a different survey?

Its a different survey altogether to the ones on pro life websites (life institute ) in the past, these are some surveys the (life institute ) carried out.

http://www.thelifeinstitute.net/am_cms_media/uploaded/l/0e3243629_1401101891_localelectioncandidate-list.pdf

http://www.thelifeinstitute.net/past-projects/be-the-change-vote-pro-life/candidates-europe/

The whichcandidate.ie online survey website was mentioned in different media outlets prior to the last general election including the irish times .

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/compare-your-views-with-500-candidates-1.2523156?mode=sample&auth-failed=1&pw-origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fnews%2Fpolitics%2Fcompare-your-views-with-500-candidates-1.2523156

Trasna1

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I find that hard to believe. When the IT did a piece on h2v, they found one person for no, vs 5 (iirc) for repeal. It's pretty clear from media coverage that h2v was a yes movement. It's not even credible to argue otherwise. Unless of course the media was biased. We even have one yes voter here that openly admits to committing electoral fraud.

That said It ultimately had no material impact on the result. You never answered the question though: what would you think of hometovote if it has led to a court challenge, invalidating a yes result? If it was as close as divorce that's exactly the kind of mess we would be facing.

Hometovote, for whatever cause, referendums and elections needs to be stamped out.

spookwoman

kylith wrote: »

Except, per your next sentence; fingerprints, fingernail, the ability to open and close it’s mouth, and the ability to decide to move.

Incidentally, you can also add ‘the ability to open its eyes, a brain that is connected to its nervous system, nerves capable of transmitting impulses, ears that are on the sides of its head, and any functioning organs at all.’

Mary is what I regard as a batsh*t crazy prolifer

Wrongway1985

facehugger99 wrote: »

If you're not living here, paying taxes or subject to our legislation, you most certainly shouldn't be getting a say in how the country is governed or how the constitution is amended.

I find the idea of giving people a voice, when they are not subject to the consequences, deeply troubling.

My Brother and his girlfriend went to Oz for 4 years they are returning soon prior to leaving they had combined over 30 years of paying into our system. Upon return They are entitled to f all. In comparison there are people who have been on the dole for years and years!

Fighting Tao

Trasna1 wrote: »

I find that hard to believe. When the IT did a piece on h2v, they found one person for no, vs 5 (iirc) for repeal. It's pretty clear from media coverage that h2v was a yes movement. It's not even credible to argue otherwise. Unless of course the media was biased. We even have one yes voter here that openly admits to committing electoral fraud.

That said It ultimately had no material impact on the result. You never answered the question though: what would you think of hometovote if it has led to a court challenge, invalidating a yes result? If it was as close as divorce that's exactly the kind of mess we would be facing.

Hometovote, for whatever cause, referendums and elections needs to be stamped out.

So 4 volunteered to talk from the Yes side and 1 from the No side. Hmm.....

Cupcake_Crisis

Trasna1 wrote: »

I find that hard to believe. When the IT did a piece on h2v, they found one person for no, vs 5 (iirc) for repeal. It's pretty clear from media coverage that h2v was a yes movement. It's not even credible to argue otherwise. Unless of course the media was biased. We even have one yes voter here that openly admits to committing electoral fraud.

That said It ultimately had no material impact on the result. You never answered the question though: what would you think of hometovote if it has led to a court challenge, invalidating a yes result? If it was as close as divorce that's exactly the kind of mess we would be facing.

Hometovote, for whatever cause, referendums and elections needs to be stamped out.

You can’t try to discredit the home to vote campaign JUST because there were more people coming home to vote yes! That’s ridiculous!

Doctor Jimbob

Cupcake_Crisis wrote: »

You can’t try to discredit the home to vote campaign JUST because there were more people coming home to vote yes! That’s ridiculous!

The real issue is young people voting. We need to stop these pesky young people voting, they're far too liberal for their own good.

_Dara_

Trasna1 wrote: »

I find that hard to believe. When the IT did a piece on h2v, they found one person for no, vs 5 (iirc) for repeal. It's pretty clear from media coverage that h2v was a yes movement. It's not even credible to argue otherwise. Unless of course the media was biased. We even have one yes voter here that openly admits to committing electoral fraud.

That said It ultimately had no material impact on the result. You never answered the question though: what would you think of hometovote if it has led to a court challenge, invalidating a yes result? If it was as close as divorce that's exactly the kind of mess we would be facing.

Hometovote, for whatever cause, referendums and elections needs to be stamped out.

Well, believe it. Not only were returning no voters featured on social media but conventional media too. I saw some interviewed on both RTÉ and BBC.

Billy86

When they were doing coverage of people coming home on the day of the vote, I saw numerous 'no' badges and t-shirts amongst them.

More would have been home to vote yes because more were voting yes in general, and also because those living abroad are largely in their 20s and 30s which is a demographic that voted 'yes' overwhelmingly.

Trasna1

Cupcake_Crisis wrote: »

Lets assume that everyone who came home to vote voted no- it still would have been a yes victory. That’s how big the difference was.

Christ, what stick would you beat it with then?

Let's say the above happened and the result was 49/51 to the no side. Would you be happy?

No one is beating the yes victory with the home to vote stick. It had no material impact on the eventual emphatic result. The problem is that it could have. My problem is that we are seemingly happy to let people run roughshod over the rules as long as they are on our side. I'm not though, I believe the integrity of the vote is worth far more than the result.

And when it's an issue you care a lot about that's on a knife edge, you might understand why.

Cupcake_Crisis

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

The real issue is young people voting. We need to stop these pesky young people voting, they're far too liberal for their own good.

I’m still young!! Kinda...

Odhinn

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

The real issue is young people voting. We need to stop these pesky young people voting, they're far too liberal for their own good.

..and too young and lively, with the smiley young faces on them.

Cupcake_Crisis

Trasna1 wrote: »

Let's say the above happened and the result was 49/51 to the no side. Would you be happy?

No one is beating the yes victory with the home to vote stick. It had no material impact on the eventual emphatic result. The problem is that it could have. My problem is that we are seemingly happy to let people run roughshod over the rules as long as they are on our side. I'm not though, I believe the integrity of the vote is worth far more than the result.

And when it's an issue you care a lot about that's on a knife edge, you might understand why.

No, I wouldn’t be happy, obviously. Would I be online bickering and trying to devalue something that’s extremely important, absolutely not. The fact is that yes won by such a margin that there was nothing the no side could have done. It was never on a knife edge, the yes was emphatic.

.......

This post has been deleted.

spookwoman

Mavis Some Insignia wrote: »

Lots of emigrants received voting cards even though the 18 month time limit had lapsed. Any of those who went ahead and voted, did so illegally.

that's some sweeping statement! I suggest if you have proof then go to the police.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Fighting Tao

Home to vote no hashtag on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/hashtag/hometovoteno?src=hash

But no one came home to vote did they Trasna1?

Fighting Tao

Here's the London group organising their own homeToVoteNo: https://twitter.com/LdnIrishU4L

It didn't happen though.... :rolleyes:

spookwoman

It's politicians fault, it's Googles fault, it's RTE's fault, it's Eamon Dunphy's fault sure he's a b*llix, it's Soro's fault, it's the illegals voters fault.

Face it the No side have lost and the no side is the only reason it lost. Grow up and smell the roses and stop blaming everyone else.

ELM327

spookwoman wrote: »

It's politicians fault, it's Googles fault, it's RTE's fault, it's Eamon Dunphy's fault sure he's a b*llix, it's Soro's fault, it's the illegals voters fault.

Face it the No side have lost and the no side is the only reason it lost. Grow up and smell the roses and stop blaming everyone else.

Not just lost though, obliterated.
It wasn't even close.

retro:electro

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Thinking of others rather then yourself.

Dealing with consequences to actions.
[/I][/COLOR]

How dare women use their bodies for anything other than procreation. The horror!
Ladies, where are our manners?

Trasna1

Cupcake_Crisis wrote: »

No, I wouldn’t be happy, obviously. Would I be online bickering and trying to devalue something that’s extremely important, absolutely not. The fact is that yes won by such a margin that there was nothing the no side could have done. It was never on a knife edge, the yes was emphatic.

If you read what I wrote I never said that this was on a knife edge, it obviously wasn't. Nor am I trying to devalue or question the yes win. It was emphatic as I have stated several times. I want to be clear on that as this is getting lost in the noise, as some people here seem to think I am questioning the vote/sore/bitter. I am none of those, how could I be when my side won.

I have never endorsed the home to vote no either. I have always started that those that came back to vote illegally, whatever way that was, was wrong. My point is that it's easy to ignore wrongdoing when the wrongdoers are by and large amongst the group you support.

If it was 51/49 and hometovote was what won it for no, Together for yes would have been in the high court already challenging the result. Likewise if it had gone the other way. And that's no good for anyone.

And that is the problem, in tightly contested elections hometovote brings the result into disrepute. It's to do with integrity, not the result.