Peter Casey's beliefs of Travellers' ethnicity Part II

Roger Hassenforder

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Nobody is saying he didn't gain.

He got 23% of the vote.

But that was 23% of 46% of the electorate, which is 10% of those who can effect change in this country.

He went from fcuk all to 23% of those that bothered to vote.

I tweeted him twice: first was to scold him about hitting the golf ball into the see, the second asking him not to drop out after the MSM and establishment healing opprobrium on him.


I think he went into this race, knowing he hadnt a hope, but to test the waters for a crack at seat in Donegal. And 23% of those that voted liked the cut of his jib. He has a mandate, like it or not.

SF did something similar, possibly with more ambitionand higher expectations, only to see it explode in their face.

MDH went is as the popular incumbent, it would have taken someone/something special to unseat him. We didnt get either, but we got something else.

Blazer

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It is not 'spoofing' to quote the factual figures, which is what i did.

23% of 46% of the electorate wanted Casey as President. Which is 10% of the Total electorate.

If it was a 'protest' vote, which is a sidebar to the election, then what we know is that 10% of the electorate where motivated/concerned enough to make a protest vote.

Keep spinning that bull**** ...no one is falling for it.
Sooner or later there’s going to be a big crackdown on welfare and we all know this will have huge effects on travellers.
They might even have to get jobs!!!!!!
Or just step up the amount of houses they rob. Which will bring its own issues.

sydthebeat

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I didn't claim that anywhere.
54% where not bothered ENOUGH either by the choice of president or what Casey said.
I have, like you no idea how they would have voted in relation to Casey, if you are claiming that Casey's vote was a 'protest' vote.
They certainly weren't motivated enough to want him as President.

Im claiming your posts are full of spin and belittlement... Which they are. You use the 10% figure as a stick to fight against the vote yet by that logic 74% of the country don't want MDH as president.

Belittle the vote all you want, but we've already seen people in the political sphere sit up and take notice.... The shinners will have to do likewise if they have any goals of increasing their popularity

Omackeral

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Which doesn't fit the narrative that there was a 'huge' mobiliasation of a 'protest vote'.

Going from 2% to 23% in a week absolutely indicates a huge mobilisation of a protest vote. That's just not even up for debate. For someone so hell bent on quoting numbers, you would think that would be obvious to you... actually, you know it is and I know you know it is.

FrancieBrady

givyjoe wrote: »

Wind your neck in. How dare I?! More laughable nonsense.No interest in someone poking holes in your 'logic' and taking the easy way out.

If there was an option to vote for 'none of the above' I would have been there in a heartbeat. Why should I go out an vote for someone to be in a position, that I believe shouldn't exist in the first place.

Go learn something about how this democracy works.

You voted for the winner. Very simple.

Not voting gives you no right to complain in my opinion.

Plumbthedepths

We can take from all this that pretty much everyone knew Casey would not win , but a light has been shown on a cohort in society that wanted it left in the shadows. Even FF are taking note of the 23 per cent vote for Casey and re-examining their traveller policy. Oh and considering their ability to twist things their is at least one expert level twister player here, who thankfully I realised how to put on ignore.

Omackeral

Edward M wrote: »

Well you are very concerned it seems.

Rattled, I believe is the word. Another -ite I thought of for his little lapdog smashing the thanks button at literally every post he splutters out. Paras-ite.

CrankyHaus

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/state-policy-towards-travellers-dodges-employment-question-1.3688569?mode=amp

This is very interesting.
While the article is careful to tip toe around the usual sacred cows it is the first I have ever seen in the Irish Times that identifies problems in the Traveller community as a result of the culture therein and criticises the decades old failed state policy of ignoring this.

This may mark a significant change in the dialogue and policy on this issue and Peter Casey deserves credit for highlighting the issue and shifting the overton window.

FrancieBrady

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Already have. Contrary to belief I don't spin the figures just to make my favourite candidate look better.

MDH won an election overwhelmingly by getting the biggest majority of those who took the time to vote.

I’d love to see what your spin was after the last general election with regards to Sinn Fein and how you measured their percentage.

By my calculations Sinn Fein were dismissed by more than 91% of the electorate in 2011. Not even 9% voted for them

Omackeral

sydthebeat wrote: »

Francies understanding of proportion is questionable at best.

Common sense would just extrapolate pro rata.

Is Francie Pro Ra? Ta!

Roger Hassenforder

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Go learn something about how this democracy works.

You voted for the winner. Very simple.

Not voting gives you no right to complain in my opinion.

In fairness Francie, you dont forfeit any rights or entitlements, by not excercising your democratic right to vote. That's an element of democracy. Its not my opinion. Its a fact.

Now it might be regarded as rediculous to decry the result of an election, had you not bothered to vote. But thats now whats at play here.

givyjoe

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Go learn something about how this democracy works.

You voted for the winner. Very simple.

Not voting gives you no right to complain in my opinion.

More irony and nonsense. We are living in a democratic country where I can choose to vote or not to vote.

As for no right to complain about your opinion, what in the name of god are you waffling on about. You're talking absolute nonsense over and over, distorting figures to suit your narrative, what on earth has that go to do with me voting or not?!:eek:

FrancieBrady

Omackeral wrote: »

Going from 2% to 23% in a week absolutely indicates a huge mobilisation of a protest vote. That's just not even up for debate. For someone so hell bent on quoting numbers, you would think that would be obvious to you... actually, you know it is and I know you know it is.

Ok, if 10% of the electorate is 'huge' I must have been asleep the day they did the meaning of that word in school.
It is a huge jump in his percentage though. Which I have no problem agreeing with.

Omackeral

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I said before, had Casey plumped to have a pop at immigrants, he'd have got a similar vote share.

That's based on my own observations of the electorate btw.

Must be observing some other world sh*t so. When do you ever hear of people complaining about the Chinese over here for example? Or pubs shutting down when a few French people roll in.

Omackeral

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

So how the jump from 2% to 23%
Something resonated with the electorate

Did you not hear him? He said 23% of Kingsmill and 46% of the end of the road, which is 10% of Michael SF Higgins.

Omackeral

sydthebeat wrote: »

any political party being 23% in a general election would be kingsmill makers.

That's better

Omackeral

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Yes, something did. We know there is a percentage in the country who have a bias and prejudice against ALL travellers and who would like measures deployed against all travellers unilaterally.

Hang on, you said if Casey plumbed to criticising immigrants, he'd have had the same support. So is everyone prejudiced against them too in your eyes?

Roger Hassenforder

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Ok, if 10% of the electorate is 'huge' I must have been asleep the day they did the meaning of that word in school.
It is a huge jump in his percentage though. Which I have no problem agreeing with.

Thats what she/he said/is saying, yet you're denying it and confirming it in the same breath!
Astonishing verbal gymnastics on display.

Omackeral

Everybody needs to start reciting this;

23 of 46

23 of 46

23 of 46

FrancieBrady

givyjoe wrote: »

More irony and nonsense. We are living in a democratic country where I can choose to vote or not to vote.

As for no right to complain about your opinion, what in the name of god are you waffling on about. You're talking absolute nonsense over and over, distorting figures to suit your narrative, what on earth has that go to do with me voting or not?!:eek:

If you don't vote, you give the right to others to make decisions for you.
YOU took yourself out of that.
You are crying over something you couldn't be arsed affecting the outcome of. Pathetic.
The people on here decrying/regretting Casey not getting it to a second count and transfers have YOU, you 6 mates and anyone else, who agreed with Casey and didn't vote, to blame. Because by not voting YOU and yer mates increased Higgin's winning margin. A spoiled vote would have stopped that.
Hope that makes you feel good!
You technically voted for the incumbent. If you had any idea of how the system works you would know that. * I am a democrat, and even if I disagree with who you vote for, I detest people who don't vote, I hope you can detect that. It is a shameful thing to do, or not do.

So go whinge to yer mates, your voice is redundant.

FrancieBrady

Omackeral wrote: »

Hang on, you said if Casey plumbed to criticising immigrants, he'd have had the same support. So is everyone prejudiced against them too in your eyes?

No, as already clearly stated, IMO around the 10-15 percentile are.

Plumbthedepths

Omackeral wrote:

Hang on, you said if Casey plumbed to criticising immigrants, he'd have had the same support. So is everyone prejudiced against them too in your eyes?

You know he is just trying to get enough of a rise out of you to justify a ' report'. His comments are pathetic at this stage, thats why I put him on ignore. The Indo and Times are carrying articles now that 3 weeks ago would have been unheard of. Casey despite his amateurish nature has achieved something than many have wanted for years.

MrMusician18

Omackeral wrote: »

Everybody needs to start reciting this;

23 of 46

23 of 46

23 of 46

A small minority...

Where have I heard that phrase before??

Omackeral

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I am a democrat, and even if I disagree with who you vote for, I detest people who don't vote, I hope you can detect that. It is a shameful thing to do, or not do.

Question. What if there's nobody on the ballot you approve of? What does one do in that instance?

MrMusician18

Omackeral wrote: »

Question. What if there's nobody on the ballot you approve of? What does one do in that instance?

There's always a shinner so that doesn't arise

Omackeral

FrancieBrady wrote: »

No, as already clearly stated, IMO around the 10-15 percentile are.

Is that clearly 10% of the 23% or 15% of the 46% or

givyjoe

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If you don't vote, you give the right to others to make decisions for you.
YOU took yourself out of that.
You are crying over something you couldn't be arsed affecting the outcome of. Pathetic.
The people on here decrying/regretting Casey not getting it to a second count and transfers have YOU, you 6 mates and anyone else, who agreed with Casey and didn't vote, to blame. Because by not voting YOU and yer mates increased Higgin's winning margin. A spoiled vote would have stopped that.
Hope that makes you feel good!
You technically voted for the incumbent. If you had any idea of how the system works you would know that. * I am a democrat, and even if I disagree with who you vote for, I detest people who don't vote, I hope you can detect that. It is a shameful thing to do, or not do.

So go whinge to yer mates, your voice is redundant.

Francie, you (bizarrely) detest folks who don't vote. i detest folks who literally don't read what I've posted and twist what I and others have said. I don't give a flying fcuk about the presidency, hence I didn't vote. I've already explained some of my reasons why. I'm commenting on your ludicrous twisting of facts on an after hours thread. I'm Not complaining about Casey not being elected, I don't care!. No amount of throwing your toys out of the pram is going to dissuade me (and others) from calling you out on your 'logic'.

Omackeral

Omackeral wrote: »

Is that clearly 10% of the 23% or 15% of the 46% or

I don’t know what a tracker mortgage is.

FrancieBrady

Omackeral wrote: »

Question. What if there's nobody on the ballot you approve of? What does one do in that instance?

Spoil your vote.

If you support a candidate (as the poster here says he and his 6 mates did) and don't get off your arse to vote, technically you make it harder for that candidate to win.

mickdw

Francie, post 923, you claim mdh out polled everyone by 3 votes to 1.
Can you explain your maths on that one as a really enjoying you maths here.

You are only hammering home how the casey result has got under your skin.

Roger Hassenforder

FrancieBrady wrote: »

...I am a democrat, and even if I disagree with who you vote for, I detest people who don't vote, I hope you can detect that. It is a shameful thing to do, or not do.

So go whinge to yer mates, your voice is redundant.

As a democrat you should respect how people vote. Choosing not to vote is an aspect of democracy you seem to have difficulties with.


Maybe you'd prefer a socialist democratic peoples republic where theres 100% turn out for the great leader with 99% in favour

givyjoe

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Spoil your vote.

If you support a candidate (as the poster here says he and his 6 mates did) and don't get off your arse to vote, technically you make it harder for that candidate to win.

Oh change the tune ffs. Your continual sniping posts are nauseating as is your inability in your posts to accurately reference what posters have said.

Spoiling your vote is a completely inadequate means of signalling your dissatisfaction with the candidates put forward. Spoiled votes cannot be broken down into ones which were intentionally spoiled or if someone make a balls of the ballot. An option for 'none of the above' would clearly give people a simple and clear means of signalling their dissatisfaction with the candidates put forward.

I look forward to reading your interpretation of the above post.:rolleyes:

FrancieBrady

mickdw wrote: »

Francie, post 923, you claim mdh out polled everyone by 3 votes to 1.
Can you explain your maths on that one as a really enjoying you maths here.

You are only hammering home how the casey result has got under your skin.

I picked it up from a previous post actually.

Here are the first preference amounts.

Higgins 822,566
Casey 342,736

xi5yvm0owc1s2b

FrancieBrady wrote: »

...only getting 10% of the electorate out on a sidebar election was pretty shambolic.

It is much more likely that the vast majority of people are like me - firstly, we wanted to pick the right person for the job (the purpose of the election)

Hold on a moment.

First, you state that only 10 percent of the electorate voted for Casey.

Then you state that the "vast majority of people," like you, supported Higgins.

In reality, only 24 percent of the total electorate voted for Higgins. By your own logic, how does that constitute a "vast majority"?

Your tactics are evident here. Downplay Casey's vote by repeatedly stating it not as a percentage of votes cast, but as a percentage of the total electorate. In the same breath, continue to claim that the "vast majority" supported Higgins.

You can't have it both ways. If you wish to insist that 90 percent of the electorate didn't vote for Casey, you also must acknowledge that 76 percent of the electorate didn't vote for Higgins, either.

Omackeral

Abstaining is a legitimate option if you don't care for any of the candidates. I can see how spoiling a vote is a legitimate form of expressing same too. I wouldn't declare that I despise anyone if they chose either option. Seems hateful to say that. Kinda hate speechy.

FrancieBrady

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

As a democrat you should respect how people vote. Choosing not to vote is an aspect of democracy you seem to have difficulties with.


Maybe you'd prefer a socialist democratic peoples republic where theres 100% turn out for the great leader with 99% in favour

Don't vote? Then you abdicate any right to complain about what you get. Simple as that for me.

If it were me, then voting would be compulsory like it is in some other democracy's.

RandomName2

dav3 wrote: »

If people seriously want to discuss travellers, they need to reach the absolute bare minimum requirement to be taken seriously . That applies to everyone, moderators and admins included.

Well I suppose that makes sense, and not exclusive to this topic, but discussion in general..

dav3 wrote: »

You need to accept that travellers are an ethnic minority and that they are an ethnic minority under law.

Oh so that's the bare minimum you mean. Not a minimum in terms of manners, or logic, or linguistic prowess, but a criteria of your own choosing dav3.

You have said that people who don't accept the ethnicity of travelers will be ignored, disdained, their opinions disregarded. Leave aside whether they are or not, should they be? The only way to judge this is to subject your position to logical scrutiny.

dav3 wrote: »

You need to understand that ethnicity is not the same as nationality or place of birth.

You need to understand that racism is the belief in the superiority of one race over another, which often results in discrimination and prejudice towards people based on their race or ethnicity.

This nicely sums up the argument, and for that I commend you dav3. You did not dance around your position, but articulated it fairly clearly.

Fairly, because you have said what ethnicity isn't, but not what it is, and you've said that racism isn't merely based on race, but also ethnicity, so that's an important omission.

I'll take the dictionary definition

The fact or state of belonging to a social group that has a common national or cultural tradition.

We'll discount national tradition, as that's clearly no interest to you. Therefore we are left with a cultural tradition.

So the assertion is that racism is a belief that one's own culture is superior to that of another culture.

Really? Really?

Really?

I'd say that there are very solid grounds to say that one culture is better than another. What about a culture that has slavery, child marriage, human sacrifice, homophobia, etc. . I'd say that Western culture is superior to all that. That makes me a racist in your eyes?

But let's say that that's true. Criticizing homophobia in another culture is a racist thing to do. Let's say that you are right.

What is the Traveler culture? Today? How is it distinct from Irish culture?

• Bare knuckle fighting.
• Very large, extravagant weddings
• Living in halting sites.
• Very insular communities.

That's it. Today. Go back 100 years ago the picture was quite different, but not so today. There is no specific traditions, religion, speech, architecture, rituals, dance, or history of this group of people that is not shared by everyone in Ireland.

They used to have child marriage and travel around the country, but the law has become tougher on both those aspects (trespass laws in relation to the second thing).

Does bare-knuckle fighting and weddings really constitute an ethnicity? Is there a bare minimum of what constitutes an ethnicity?

Are there dozens of Irish ethnicities? There are different accents, traditions, etc. in different parts of the country. Are we all minorities?

I think there is a reason why the people complaining about Casey have made no effort to show what makes Travelers a distinct ethnicity. I think the vagueness suits them. They say that Casey is being used as a vehicle for attacking a minority, without any self awareness that they are using the term 'ethnicity' to attack a majority.

FrancieBrady

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I picked it up from a previous post actually.

Here are the first preference amounts.

Higgins 822,566
Casey 342,736

Those 2 figures speak volumes. For every vote PC got, MDH got 2.5. And people still think PC was wrong in what he said. The next General Election is going to be very interesting. People are sick to the teeth of minority groups like AAA/PBP/Solidarity Independents who shout the loudest and try to put a stop to any progress in the country.

FrancieBrady

Hattie Puny Litterbug wrote: »

Hold on a moment.

First, you state that only 10 percent of the electorate voted for Casey.

Then you state that the "vast majority of people," like you, supported Higgins.

In reality, only 24 percent of the total electorate voted for Higgins. By your own logic, how does that constitute a "vast majority"?

Your tactics are evident here. Downplay Casey's vote by repeatedly stating it not as a percentage of votes cast, but as a percentage of the total electorate. In the same breath, continue to claim that the "vast majority" supported Higgins.

You can't have it both ways. If you wish to insist that 90 percent of the electorate didn't vote for Casey, you also must acknowledge that 76 percent of the electorate didn't vote for Higgins, either.

I have already clarified that Vox.

The vast majority, the overwhelming amount of THOSE THAT VOTED, supported Higgins in the presidential election.

The figures for a protest vote are:
23% of 46% turnout or 10% of the total electorate.

Laois_Man

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Don't vote? Then you abdicate any right to complain about what you get. Simple as that for me.

How many people can be really arsed about complaining about the what they get in an Irish presidential election!

xi5yvm0owc1s2b

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The vast majority, the overwhelming amount of THOSE THAT VOTED, supported Higgins in the presidential election.

I don't know that I'd characterize 55.8% as a "vast majority." It's a majority, but I struggle to see what is "vast" or "overwhelming" about it.

Notably, 44.2 percent of people who voted did not vote for Higgins. Higgins also received over 184,000 fewer votes in 2018 than he got in 2011.

But this still doesn't address the core point. You can't continue to cite Casey's vote as just 10 percent of the total electorate and then warble on about how Higgins, with just 24 percent of the total electorate, had the support of the "vast majority." If you want to continue stating that Casey got 10 percent of the total electorate, then you must, for sake of consistency, acknowledge that Higgins got just 24 percent of the same total electorate.

But that would involve acknowledging that the the vast majority of the electorate (76 percent) either stayed at home or voted for a candidate other than Higgins, which puts a bit of a dent in your "overwhelming support" argument.

blanch152

CrankyHaus wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/state-policy-towards-travellers-dodges-employment-question-1.3688569?mode=amp

This is very interesting.
While the article is careful to tip toe around the usual sacred cows it is the first I have ever seen in the Irish Times that identifies problems in the Traveller community as a result of the culture therein and criticises the decades old failed state policy of ignoring this.

This may mark a significant change in the dialogue and policy on this issue and Peter Casey deserves credit for highlighting the issue and shifting the overton window.

"If a Traveller (married with adult dependent and five children) worked as a building labourer at the registered employment agreement rate of €13.77 per hour, his take-home pay for working 39 hours a week for a year would be €25,594 – €806 less than the jobseekers’ allowance. Amazingly, the Traveller taking the building job would also lose the medical card for the family because the income limit for the medical card for a couple with five children is only €24,206. (The stupidity of our welfare system knows no bounds)"


This is amazing. Welfare pays more than work in this country.

What is even more amazing is that the State is paying its own workers - Clerical Officers, Cleaners, Services Officers - less than some of them might get on Welfare.


https://circulars.gov.ie/pdf/circular/per/2017/22.pdf

This is the reason why either welfare needs to be cut or the rewards for work need to be increased.

FrancieBrady

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I have already clarified that Vox.

The vast majority, the overwhelming amount of THOSE THAT VOTED, supported Higgins in the presidential election.

The figures for a protest vote are:
23% of 46% turnout or 10% of the total electorate.

Keep beating the same drum Francie, it won't distort the fact that over 300,000 people offered Casey first preference. And that number can shut down the country in protest if their concerns are negated.

FrancieBrady

Hattie Puny Litterbug wrote: »

But that would involve acknowledging that the the vast majority of the electorate (76 percent) either stayed at home or voted for a candidate other than Higgins, which puts a bit of a dent in your "overwhelming support" argument.

I said that 'overwhelming' in relation to the numbers voting, not the turnout. Whatever about the Higgins vote and 'vast' etc. He won and won clearly.

The point about a 'protest' vote holds to what you said above. The vast majority of people are just not that bothered, like the poster here and his 6 mates. Easy to rant from a keyboard, but to actually go and do something about it...'nah, I couldn't be arsed' seems to be what happened, or people didn't like the targeting of minority communities, or people didn't see what Casey said as credible or as an issue.

sydthebeat

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I said that 'overwhelming' in relation to the numbers voting, not the turnout. .

the turnout of what?? the numbers that voted ??


:D:D:D:D

FrancieBrady

Laois_Man wrote: »

How many people can be really arsed about complaining about the what they get in an Irish presidential election!

Who could be arsed listening to them if they didn't vote? :rolleyes:

FrancieBrady

sydthebeat wrote: »

the turnout of what?? the numbers that voted ??


:D:D:D:D

He got the overwhelming support of those that voted...half a million ahead in fact and a record margin I believe. (only quoting that from somebody else on here)

mickdw

Francie,
The first preference votes tell us that casey got 41.67 percent of the votes mdh got.
Does not equate to 3 to 1.

You are a joke figure here at this stage.

xi5yvm0owc1s2b

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I said that 'overwhelming' in relation to the numbers voting, not the turnout. Whatever about the Higgins vote and 'vast' etc. He won and won clearly.

Numbers voting and turnout are the same thing, no?

Again, you continue to cite Higgins's vote as a percentage of those who voted while citing Casey's vote as a percentage of the total electorate.

Thus, you can try to claim that Higgins had "overwhelming" support while Casey got "just" 10 percent of the total electorate.

The sleight of hand here is obvious. You aren't fooling anyone but yourself.

Using your own logic, only 24 percent of the electorate voted for Higgins, a figure that is neither vast nor overwhelming.

Laois_Man

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Who could be arsed listening to them if they didn't vote? :rolleyes:

I voted....and I voted for the president.....but I am still not arsed listening to him