So Michael D IS running again!

alaimacerc

jay0109 wrote: »

Expenses is 12% min share of the vote

12.5%+1, IIRC. Someone might be clinging on for the extra half a percent, you know!

(One thing I'm not entirely certain about is whether there's a transfer of the winner's surplus (if any). I'm guessing yes. Could be an argument for bullet-voting!)

Goldengirl

This post has been deleted.

FrancieBrady

blackwhite wrote: »

Your argument is that 44% wanting election means that they shouldn’t be scared to be seen to be the party that caused an election

However 46% not wanting an election is exactly why being blamed for an election would cost them votes.

But please - continue to spin and push your usual agenda. Can’t let any pesky facts gets in the way of that :rolleyes:

By your curious but typical logic; nobody would ever call an election.

alaimacerc

FrancieBrady wrote: »

For someone who attempts to be so eloquently dismissive you don't seem to up to date or able to use Google. Can't post links on the phone but try the latest IT poll.

For someone so snippy you were remarkably vague in what you're expecting everyone else to google for you.

Interesting. Also illustrates the old saw that it all matters what question you ask. One gives four years, they split four ways; this one gives two unpleasant-sounding alternatives, they split two ways!

alaimacerc

FrancieBrady wrote: »

By your curious but typical logic; nobody would ever call an election.

The supreme court and the inside of a jail cell would have something to say about dat.

alaimacerc

blackwhite wrote: »

Your argument is that 44% wanting election means that they shouldn’t be scared to be seen to be the party that caused an election

However 46% not wanting an election is exactly why being blamed for an election would cost them votes.

But please - continue to spin and push your usual agenda. Can’t let any pesky facts gets in the way of that :rolleyes:

Francie would somehow manage to be among them, too. Within hours of an election being called, there will be reams on how "the establishment parties" have caused an election for their own cynical purposes. (Wouldn't be entirely wrong either, mind.)

James Brown

alaimacerc wrote: »

I don't recall saying that, so you're disagreeing with... yourself?

You said you had to hold your nose, when I said you were looking for a sniff of racism. All I'm doing is suggesting that giving Travelers an ethnic status was a nonsense. I never said you said that, for it was a question.

alaimacerc wrote: »

I think the Irish state was at the least remiss. There's been expert testimony for some time that they are an ethnic group, and a demand from them to get it. Clearly it was very politically unpopular in many quarters, hence it didn't happen.

So they weren't racist per se, just of a different opinion, judged to be open to change at a later date?

alaimacerc wrote: »

Why's it a matter of "warranting"? You disagree with the accepted academic criteria for determining what is and isn't an ethnic group? Or just reject them as not to your political liking?

Neither. I do not believe they meet the requirements.

alaimacerc wrote: »

Le sigh. I haven't "moved on" at all. I'm still trying to hammer home the same point: that you're trying to cheese-pare definition of what is and isn't "racism". There's not a scientific notion of "race"; it's a sociological construct; thus, so is racism. There's not a qualitative difference between the experience of prejudice of Travellers in Ireland, and that of the Irish "in a foreign land", as you put it.

The Irish getting badly treated was because they were Irish. The fact they were white didn't come into it either way. I say that because you were on about how people need not be a different colour, after bringing out your colour swatch claptrap. You seem to be performing all kinds of gymnastics to make my assertion that giving travelers their own ethnic status was and is a nonsense about racism or bigotry IMO. If anyone wants to treat them differently because they are travelers, it's you. Like any marginalised person, any traveler in need of special case aid or assistance due to circumstances they find themselves in, should be able to avail of it.

alaimacerc wrote: »

For my information? That's a bit rich, as I've been trying explain that to you for several posts now. We're trying to determine why you think that Travellers can't be an ethnic group. Other than you badly don't want them to be. I can only infer it's because that shines a light on your negative attitude to them that you're uncomfortable with.

Pick one of those and stick with it!

All your condescending smarm aside, you're trying to create an issue where there isn't one pal.

James Brown

CH3OH wrote: »

I prefer Casey for his honesty, but the others are attacking each other to Higgins benefit

I don't think Casey gives two f***s about Travelers either way. He's minted and needs never deal with them and has spent much of his time in the U.S. He's using a contentious issue to try make himself relevant. If you agree with him have at it, but he's full of baloney IMO.

FrancieBrady

alaimacerc wrote: »

Francie would somehow manage to be among them, too. Within hours of an election being called, there will be reams on how "the establishment parties" have caused an election for their own cynical purposes. (Wouldn't be entirely wrong either, mind.)

You are going to insist that your view is the only one.
Carry on. You will be doing it on your own.

James Brown

Hurrache wrote: »

As multitalented as he is, I don't think he put them up himself.

He'd need a monster ladder for a start

Rhineshark

Tbh, I'm a little bemused at how easily people are falling for Casey.

Before the Traveller thing, Casey couldn't open his mouth without saying something dumb and I don't think I saw any interest in him. He was an eejit.

He goes for a controversial comment that some people like hearing and suddenly nope, all is forgiven, the man is a courageous truth-teller in a world gone mad and should be president.

Like, it's not like we haven't seen the *exact same methodology* over the past TWO YEARS where mostly people could absolutely see it for what it was. Guy tries it here and...yep, people are just as inclined to fall for it. At least the Americans and British had the excuse of not having seen it as much before.

Tell me how

Rhineshark wrote: »

Tbh, I'm a little bemused at how easily people are falling for Casey.

Before the Traveller thing, Casey couldn't open his mouth without saying something dumb and I don't think I saw any interest in him. He was an eejit.

He goes for a controversial comment that some people like hearing and suddenly nope, all is forgiven, the man is a courageous truth-teller in a world gone mad and should be president.

Like, it's not like we haven't seen the *exact same methodology* over the past TWO YEARS where mostly people could absolutely see it for what it was. Guy tries it here and...yep, people are just as inclined to fall for it. At least the Americans and British had the excuse of not having seen it as much before.

Yeah. We think the Americans are ridiculous for falling for Trump's shtick and then after a couple of comments on a topic which our president will have no influence over, several are claiming that they are going to vote for him. Mostly online claims of course.

Goldengirl

This post has been deleted.

foggyflies

Though despite casey we are guaranteed Michael D Higgins to get re-elected soon enough.

What gets me is the incredible range of designs that just keep coming out about him. https://maktus.com/products/michael-d-higgins-pin These pins are particularly good.

pixelburp

The whole Casey issue has given me a kick in my presumptuous backside in thinking the Irish electorate was more informed and less prone to obvious topical, emotional manipulation. I'm not convinced Casey knew what he getting into, but it certainly had the desired effect in completely avoiding discussion about the man's background and status - financial or otherwise.

ancapailldorcha

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Well done answering a question with a question. Although all you have done is answer or respond in a sneering condescending manner to every poster with a different opinion to you. Nothing more to say other than if Casey hadn't rattled cages you and a few like you would not be here posting in the manner which you are. I wouldn't be responding to you further. Bye bye, ;-)

Banned. No more sniping please.

James Brown

pixelburp wrote: »

The whole Casey issue has given me a kick in my presumptuous backside in thinking the Irish electorate was more informed and less prone to obvious topical, emotional manipulation. I'm not convinced Casey knew what he getting into, but it certainly had the desired effect in completely avoiding discussion about the man's background and status - financial or otherwise.

One can only hope that despite the cynical me feiner politics we currently endure Irish people en masse at their heart are decent enough to see through such chancers.

Goldengirl

This post has been deleted.

Goldengirl

This post has been deleted.

Hotblack Desiato

I wouldn't feel sorry for someone whose ego drove them to do something so deeply foolish.

FrancieBrady

Matt Barrett wrote: »

One can only hope that despite the cynical me feiner politics we currently endure Irish people en masse at their heart are decent enough to see through such chancers.

There really is no evidence that this has had any resonance with anyone other than a few bored journalists and the rabble on social media waiting with bated breath for someone to lead them into crusade.

RandomName2

Hoping for SF to get worse than 3rd place (but that seems unlikely), but it's hard to care beyond that.

For all of Casey being a breath of fresh air, his outspokenness is actually not suitable for the position of president. Indeed, this is the main criticism that can be leveled at Higgins, who has often inappropriately worn his personal feelings on his sleeve.

Gavin Duffy is without doubt the most boring of the fare. Tackling obesity? Did he mix up the office of president with the set of Operation Transformation?

FrancieBrady

According to the news there, Casey refused to go and engage with the people involved down in Thurles. So 'all mouth and no solutions Casey', he is.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

According to the news there, Casey refused to go and engage with the people involved down in Thurles. So 'all mouth and no solutions Casey', he is.

I went and read the news article. He visited the site which he said he would do. It doesn't say he "refused to go and engage" with anybody. He says he left without speaking to them. That could mean many things. Maybe he took health and safety advice and left quickly.

https://www.rte.ie/news/presidential-election/2018/1018/1005086-presidential-election/

"Independent presidential candidate Peter Casey has visited a new housing estate for members of the Travelling community in Thurles, Co Tipperary"

"Today, he left Cabragh Bridge without speaking to members of the Travelling community nearby."

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

I went and read the news article. He visited the site which he said he would do. It doesn't say he "refused to go and engage" with anybody. He says he left without speaking to them. That could mean many things. Maybe he took health and safety advice and left quickly.

https://www.rte.ie/news/presidential-election/2018/1018/1005086-presidential-election/

"Independent presidential candidate Peter Casey has visited a new housing estate for members of the Travelling community in Thurles, Co Tipperary"

"Today, he left Cabragh Bridge without speaking to members of the Travelling community nearby."

So as President he proposes to make grandiose and rabble rousing statements, and then feck all else to resolve them? Way to go Peter. Not hard to have a guess at who his mentor/idol might be.

Sam Russell

alaimacerc wrote: »

12.5%+1, IIRC. Someone might be clinging on for the extra half a percent, you know!

(One thing I'm not entirely certain about is whether there's a transfer of the winner's surplus (if any). I'm guessing yes. Could be an argument for bullet-voting!)

Once someone is elected, counting stops. So if MDH gets elected on the first count, only the candidates first preference count. So they will need 25% of the quota, or 12.5% of the vote. So if MDH gets 70% of the vote, the other five share 30%, or an average of 6% each.

I doubt more than one will qualify for expenses if that is the result, and probably no one will.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So as President he proposes to make grandiose and rabble rousing statements, and then feck all else to resolve them? Way to go Peter. Not hard to have a guess at who his mentor/idol might be.

I am not getting into a discussion about whether Peter is right or wrong, I have no interest in that.

You posted that he "refused to go and engage with the people involved down in Thurles". I thought that was interesting and went and checked the news article and it was much more boring and mundane. All I was doing was correcting the record on what happened so that nobody else would be caught out by the inaccurate reference.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

I am not getting into a discussion about whether Peter is right or wrong, I have no interest in that.

You posted that he "refused to go and engage with the people involved down in Thurles". I thought that was interesting and went and checked the news article and it was much more boring and mundane. All I was doing was correcting the record on what happened so that nobody else would be caught out by the inaccurate reference.

He was asked on the spot by reporters, would he go and see the people involved who were waiting for him down the road. He said no he wouldn't.
He refused.

No mistruth or lie there. Listen to the news.

blackwhite

alaimacerc wrote: »

Ivana Bacik's name was dropped in, last night...



Some degree of party discipline would in theory have made a difference.

Labour will try and push Bacik as some point. They’ll ignore the fact that she has always struggled to win even a Dail seat, and push her regardless. Whether they’ll have enough councillors, never mind TDs and senators, to get her a nomination is another matter of course :P

blackwhite

FrancieBrady wrote: »

By your curious but typical logic; nobody would ever call an election.

Are you seriously pretending to be incapable of comprehending that 46% is higher than 44%?

New low tbh