People like SF candidates but won't vote for SF

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Keeping you honest is a job in itself. I am sure others will be in with buzz words and some abuse for me, but I will ask again anyway.

Anything at all to back this up?

Ask away, but more pertinently, given that everyone else in the country believes that Paul Quinn is not a criminal, have you anything to back up your doubts?

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Ask away, but more pertinently, given that everyone else in the country believes that Paul Quinn is not a criminal, have you anything to back up your doubts?

I don't know blanch. that is why I think we should know everything there is to know. As I said, when these victims are used in elections or for political gain, the 'truth' always gets murkier.
Generally those who are happy to use them, come away claiming truths, but when asked to back them up, they disintegrate into the wind.

You cannot back up a fairly serious claim. That's fair enough and predictable.

The big loser here is Breege Quinn tbh.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I don't know blanch. that is why I think we should know everything there is to know. As I said, when these victims are used in elections or for political gain, the 'truth' always gets murkier.
Generally those who are happy to use them, come away claiming truths, but when asked to back them up, they disintegrate into the wind.

You cannot back up a fairly serious claim. That's fair enough and predictable.

The big loser here is Breege Quinn tbh.

Nonsense.

You have denied Gerry Adam's membership of the IRA and criminality on the basis that he has never been convicted, yet you refuse to extend the same courtesy and principle to Paul Quinn.

This isn't about what I or anyone else know or don't know or are prepared to back up or not, this is about your standards and how you apply them differentially, you know what that defines.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Nonsense.

You have denied Gerry Adam's membership of the IRA and criminality on the basis that he has never been convicted, yet you refuse to extend the same courtesy and principle to Paul Quinn.

This isn't about what I or anyone else know or don't know or are prepared to back up or not, this is about your standards and how you apply them differentially, you know what that defines.

Wrong. I also don't know ( nor care) if Adams was a member or not. That has always been my position on allegations. Including allegations against the British for instance.
I refer to their 'alleged collusion' when it hasnt been proved.

We all know, that if it is an allegation against SF, that you book a room at the inn for the hangman.

seamus

McMurphy wrote: »

Of course this works in reverse Seamus, no more will we hear complaining from FF/FG voters about SF abstaining from Westminster I assume?

Well, FG haven't refused to go into government with Sinn Fein, but otherwise the premise is sound.

You'll still hear complaints about SF not going into Westminster, but at least now the Shinners can point out hypocrisy on the part of FF.

James Brown

seamus wrote: »

Well, FG haven't refused to go into government with Sinn Fein, but otherwise the premise is sound.

You'll still hear complaints about SF not going into Westminster, but at least now the Shinners can point out hypocrisy on the part of FF.

Do you think the talk and Varadkar 'no' video are just blarney but they are keeping the door open? Be some turn-around and I'd lose respect for any party beside FF, goes in with FG.

seamus

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Do you think the talk and Varadkar 'no' video are just blarney but they are keeping the door open? Be some turn-around and I'd lose respect for any party beside FF, goes in with FG.

Maybe my brain is failing me, but as far as I can tell, the "official" line for FG throughout this campaign whenever Leo has been asked is that a partnership with Sinn Fein is "The least favoured option, but nothing is off the table", whereas Meehaul has been completely unequivocal about it.

At the same time if that video is nothing but bluster, all of the TDs who appeared in it, will be absolutely eviscerated in the event of a coalition.

The Rape of Lucretia

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Do you think the talk and Varadkar 'no' video are just blarney but they are keeping the door open? Be some turn-around and I'd lose respect for any party beside FF, goes in with FG.

All pre-election promises, red lines, and policies, become null and void once the polling stations close. You have to hope getting into bed with the political branch of a paramilitary organisation is a step too far though.

FrancieBrady

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

All pre-election promises, red lines, and policies, become null and void once the polling stations close. You have to hope getting into bed with the political branch of a paramilitary organisation is a step too far though.

I can recognise fear when I see it. Might be good to talk TROL

Map out what it is you fear. Pretend SF are in government, what do you think will happen?

James Brown

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

All pre-election promises, red lines, and policies, become null and void once the polling stations close. You have to hope getting into bed with the political branch of a paramilitary organisation is a step too far though.

I thought the Blue shirts disbanded? I've enough real current issues with FG to be considering.

The Rape of Lucretia

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I can recognise fear when I see it. Might be good to talk TROL

Map out what it is you fear. Pretend SF are in government, what do you think will happen?

I would see the negativeness of the universe. The hideous lonely emptiness of existence. Nothingness. The predicament of Man forced to live in a barren, Godless eternity like a tiny flame flickering in an immense void with nothing but waste, horror and degradation, forming a useless bleak straitjacket in a black absurd cosmos.

FrancieBrady

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

I would see the negativeness of the universe. The hideous lonely emptiness of existence. Nothingness. The predicament of Man forced to live in a barren, Godless eternity like a tiny flame flickering in an immense void with nothing but waste, horror and degradation, forming a useless bleak straitjacket in a black absurd cosmos.

Ok, but do you see any bad stuff?

James Brown

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

I would see the negativeness of the universe. The hideous lonely emptiness of existence. Nothingness. The predicament of Man forced to live in a barren, Godless eternity like a tiny flame flickering in an immense void with nothing but waste, horror and degradation, forming a useless bleak straitjacket in a black absurd cosmos.

Yeah I won't be voting FG either.

Bishop of hope

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

I would see the negativeness of the universe. The hideous lonely emptiness of existence. Nothingness. The predicament of Man forced to live in a barren, Godless eternity like a tiny flame flickering in an immense void with nothing but waste, horror and degradation, forming a useless bleak straitjacket in a black absurd cosmos.

So basically maybe FG back in, lol?

MadYaker

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Ok, but do you see any bad stuff?

Economic illiteracy and their stance on the special criminal court would be the main ones for me. You've a long road ahead of you beating the SF drum. It'll be many many years before people start treating them like a normal political party in this country.

Bishop of hope

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Yeah I won't be voting FG either.

Lol snap.

James Brown

Bishop of hope wrote: »

Lol snap.

Sounds like he's on the fence

The Rape of Lucretia

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Yeah I won't be voting FG either.

Thats OK. Our policy is to recommend FF this round. I strongly commend them.

Bishop of hope

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Sounds like he's on the fence

I sort of am tbf, I'm not convinced by any party at all, but I will vote and try as I might I can't convince myself to put a number in front of our solitary SF candidate.

woohoo!!!

MadYaker wrote: »

Economic illiteracy and their stance on the special criminal court would be the main ones for me. You've a long road ahead of you beating the SF drum. It'll be many many years before people start treating them like a normal political party in this country.

Sounds like you're describing FF there

James Brown

Bishop of hope wrote: »

I sort of am tbf, I'm not convinced by any party at all, but I will vote and try as I might I can't convince myself to put a number in front of our solitary SF candidate.

I don't give our lad anything. It's O'Snodaigh. I'll give the side kick a nod defo. I'll admit it's like picking the kid with asthma over the one on a crutch as you get lower and dodge FF/FG.

Ultimanemo

Negative voting should be allowed, i.e. I don't want to vote for anybody but I particularly hate that guy and I want to give him a negative vote

joe40

MadYaker wrote: »

Economic illiteracy and their stance on the special criminal court would be the main ones for me. You've a long road ahead of you beating the SF drum. It'll be many many years before people start treating them like a normal political party in this country.

Apart from the people who actually vote for them, in significant numbers.

McMurphy

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Thats OK. Our policy is to recommend FF this round. I strongly commend them.

"Ours" as in who's?

It's definitely not FGs policy that's for sure. Leo is writing handwritten notes to his constituents begging for them to vote for him, perhaps he meant Jack Chambers?

Been under a lot of stress lately has Leo, maybe he got confused.

Paschal Donohoe is at the same lark by the way.

JeffKenna

Ultimanemo wrote: »

Negative voting should be allowed, i.e. I don't want to vote for anybody but I particularly hate that guy and I want to give him a negative vote

I'd like that. I'd much prefer to give someone a minus vote tomorrow than a different person a plus 1

James Brown

JeffKenna wrote: »

I'd like that. I'd much prefer to give someone a minus vote tomorrow than a different person a plus 1

We'd still end up with the one we dislike the least winning

efanton

MadYaker wrote: »

Economic illiteracy and their stance on the special criminal court would be the main ones for me. You've a long road ahead of you beating the SF drum. It'll be many many years before people start treating them like a normal political party in this country.

And somehow you are qualified in economic to make that statement?

NO party, or potential finance minister does the number themselves. Never have and never will. If you think that then you have less of a clue than the so called economic illiterate you talk of.

They have an idea, then they submit that proposal to an auditor or actuary, and they do the maths for them.

For instance they might ask what would be the resultant revenue loss if we raised the threshold by €2000, The actuary would give them that answer as well as an assessment of what other effects that policy might have.

Once they have cobbled together an overall plan they then submit that to the department of finance. Every single party does exactly the same thing, so if you are criticising the competence of the people who do the maths, or assess the impact of a proposed policy you certainly are not criticising SF or any other party, you are criticising the actuaries involved or the departmental of finance.

The problem always has been not the policy of any government, not whether the books balance in theory, whether it has be costed correctly, but the implementation of policy. FG seemed to have costed a policy that would improve Health, education and housing yet through nothing more than pure incompetence have spent literally billions on these services with absolutely no real positive affect whatsoever.

Personally I would sooner trust the 'illiterate' as you call them to the totally incompetent.

Edgware

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I don't give our lad anything. It's O'Snodaigh. I'll give the side kick a nod defo. I'll admit it's like picking the

Once kid with asthma over the one on a crutch as you get lower and dodge FF/FG.

Once O Snodaigh learns to speak English he will be very good

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I don't give our lad anything. It's O'Snodaigh. I'll give the side kick a nod defo. I'll admit it's like picking the kid with asthma over the one on a crutch as you get lower and dodge FF/FG.

I’ve one kid who had asthma and another who spent nearly two years on crutches.

Both of them suffered from dealing with nastiness like this.

fergus1001

voted for everyone bar FF FG need to send a message to these chancers