What have we come to

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

He'd likely be Irish and not relevant to the point but a try at a dig at SF, sure why not.

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Was reading an article in the Times, just an opinion piece. However BBC's John Simpson was cited as being under the impression Brexit was the big reason we voted the way we did. It was rightly pointed out that the British have little to no knowledge or interest in how it actually is on the ground in Ireland north or south. With the DUP lad calling Varadkar 'the Indian' and Johnson asking why he's not called Murphy like the rest of them. Trade talks should be interesting.

So you are allowed to make a dig at the British (which could be considered racist), but someone who points out the blatant racism of a SF councillor is not allowed to have a dig.

That takes hypocrisy to a new level. The mind boggles.

blanch152

thequarefellow wrote: »

Not that it matters but wasn't De Valera born in another country and to a Spanish father?

I'm glad SF had the sense to give that Holohan idiot the boot. An embarrassment.

I think Holohan is still a member. He was quietly brushed under the carpet but he wasn't expelled. We can expect a celebratory video from him any day soon.

Plumbthedepths

blanch152 wrote: »

So you are allowed to make a dig at the British (which could be considered racist), but someone who points out the blatant racism of a SF councillor is not allowed to have a dig.

That takes hypocrisy to a new level. The mind boggles.

Xenophobic prehaps , but to the best of my knowledge nationality does not equate to race. Even British.

James Brown

Cupatae wrote: »

Seems to me you are happy to waste your time banging on about how great they are but when it comes to anything negative or inconvenient to your points its deemed "Waste of time"

You don't seem very balanced in your own views if you are not willing to atleast acknowledge the bad, or negative aspects..

By the way i was all for SF breaking up the big two and happy for them if they were genuine about change so your excuse of "Me continuing the tactic" for not answering the question doesnt really fly.

That's an exaggeration bordering on a lie.
I was speaking on the british view of Ireland and how they feel brexit played a major role in how we voted, so yes, you're talking sh*te.

It's a given for me, (their past).
You are poor at this. I was speaking on the effect or non-effect of brexit on our vote as seen from Britain. You comments are a fraud.

Ush1

Matt Barrett wrote: »

That's an exaggeration bordering on a lie.
I was speaking on the british view of Ireland and how they feel brexit played a major role in how we voted, so yes, you're talking sh*te.

It's a given for me, (their past).
You are poor at this. I was speaking on the effect or non-effect of brexit on our vote as seen from Britain. You comments are a fraud.

So your comments were nothing to do with ignorance of the Brits on Irish matters?

Very confusing altogether.

James Brown

Ush1 wrote: »

How is it not relevant to the point?

You're pointing out British electorate ignorance, and I'm pointing out Irish.

My point was the british view of how brexit played a major role in our election and how they don't seem to know or care about what's actually going down. So yes, irrelevant. Be honest, just post on SF rather than wasting my time with your sad dishonest twisting.

Ush1

Matt Barrett wrote: »

My point was the british view of how brexit played a major role in our election and how they don't seem to know or care about what's actually going down. So yes, irrelevant. Be honest, just post on SF rather than wasting my time with your sad dishonest twisting.

I agree, but I added, this being a discussion forum, that there is ignorance from Irish politicians on our own side.

Sorry is anything remotely negative about SF irrelevant because you say so? Maybe read the OP again.

gormdubhgorm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

That is just more arrogant denigration of the electorate. Stop it please...accept the vote and don't be embarrassing yourself.

In your favour, you do seem to have stopped with the diatribe. I sense you are coming to terms with it all.

I am just discussing it as are you - note the OP created the title what have we come to. SF have only got one fifth of the seats as have FG as have FF.

And no it is not an arrogant denigration of the electorate - it is clear that there was a vacuum in the left SF filled. Some of it was vote in desperation, some of it was vote taking a chance like you, and some of it was in ignorance of the full facts.

blanch152

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Xenophobic prehaps , but to the best of my knowledge nationality does not equate to race. Even British.

https://www.lawreform.ie/_fileupload/RevisedActs/WithAnnotations/HTML/EN_ACT_2000_0008.HTM

Section 3 (2) (h) of the Equal Status Acts defines discrimination on the grounds of race as follows:

"(h) that they are of different race, colour, nationality or ethnic or national origins (the “ground of race”),"

Unfortunately, the best of your knowledge is wrong. Making derogatory remarks about the British is racist.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

So you are allowed to make a dig at the British (which could be considered racist), but someone who points out the blatant racism of a SF councillor is not allowed to have a dig.

That takes hypocrisy to a new level. The mind boggles.

You are very dishonest here and purposefully so.
I am attempting to pass comment on the British view of our election regarding Brexit and lack of interest in the realities on the ground. That's not a dig, that's their view and my commenting on it.
Why not throw in Kenny's N word joke or a tirade by Tommy Robinson? Because it's irrelevant to my comment.

You are either unable to comprehend or pretending you can't. Neither a good look.

James Brown

Ush1 wrote: »

I agree, but I added, this being a discussion forum, that there is ignorance from Irish politicians on our own side.

Sorry is anything remotely negative about SF irrelevant because you say so? Maybe read the OP again.

Ush1 wrote: »

So your comments were nothing to do with ignorance of the Brits on Irish matters?

Very confusing altogether.

Not my fault you can't comprehend.
Ongoing if I make any comment about any entity on any issue I'll be sure to mention Bobby Sands and Martin McGuinness :rolleyes:

FrancieBrady

Matt Barrett wrote: »

That's an exaggeration bordering on a lie.
I was speaking on the british view of Ireland and how they feel brexit played a major role in how we voted, so yes, you're talking sh*te.

It's a given for me, (their past).
You are poor at this. I was speaking on the effect or non-effect of brexit on our vote as seen from Britain. You comments are a fraud.

The Telegraph is currently making the case that SF's success is Varadkar's fault:

Then, along comes Brexit and in 2017 the new Irish Taoiseach, Leo Varadkar, forgets his modernising, liberal stance and puts on the old green jersey of Irish nationalism. It turned out that virulent nationalism had not gone away after all. So, if Brit-bashing is again the approved, mainstream sport in the republic’s politics, why not turn to Sinn Fein, the best qualified players in that nasty game?

James Brown

The FG lads are desperate and bitter.

A comment on how the British viewed the election as it related to Brexit turns into a shinner bare knuckle troll fest.
Get over it lads

gormdubhgorm

Idbatterim wrote: »

SF if they had run more candidates, would have received over 25% of the td's in the dail, its not like 2% you could brand as loons. they obviously have a diverse enough voter base

If me granny had balls she would be me uncle. This new SF voter based clearly does not bother voting at local council level? Where SF got hammered. They were very worried.

Which caused SF to run this amount of candidates in the GE
Which leads me to believe it is more of a protest vote than anything else.

My suspicion is my of these new fickle SF voters are only trying them out, and the novelty will ware thin fairly quick.

blanch152

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

If me granny had balls she would be me uncle. This new SF voter based clearly does not bother voting at local council level? Where SF got hammered. They were very worried.

Which caused SF to run this amount of candidates in the GE
Which leads me to believe it is more of a protest vote than anything else.

My suspicion is my of these new SF voters are only trying them out, and the novelty will ware thin fairly quick.

It has worn thin already.

An English neighbour of mine was telling me earlier that there were fellas in his workplace apologising to him for Cullinane saying they didn't realise what they were voting for.

Duke of Url

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The Telegraph is currently making the case that SF's success is Varadkar's fault:

SF success is based on the largest socialist programme the state has ever seen.

Everyone will sit back and watch now.

FrancieBrady

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

If me granny had balls she would be me uncle. This new SF voter based clearly does not bother voting at local council level? Where SF got hammered. They were very worried.

Which caused SF to run this amount of candidates in the GE
Which leads me to believe it is more of a protest vote than anything else.

My suspicion is my of these new fickle SF voters are only trying them out, and the novelty will ware thin fairly quick.

It's all Leo's fault with his 'virulent nationalism'. The English say so!

Well, it's as valid a theory as your, 'the young are all stupid', or maybe both of you are desperately looking for excuses?

tjhook

FrancieBrady wrote: »

he abandons the 22% who wanted FG in government, even when there may be a path to government opening up to them.

SF has already said they'd rather not have a coalition with FF or FG.

Let SF put together whatever other coalition they can. I see no benefit to having FF or FG along for the ride, to be blamed when promises can't be fulfilled. Both FF and FG have said before the election that they wouldn't go into coalition with SF, so it's fair to assume that the voters who voted FF/FG voted with that knowledge.

Governing is tricky. Make life more expensive/difficult for companies, and they move out or do less business here. Less tax. Fewer jobs. On the other hand, make life more expensive/difficult for citizens, and they revolt. Quite possibly leading to the same end result. I think that's what's happening here.

I'm confident that SF in government will make life worse for people overall. Maybe better in some ways, but worse in others. Let's see. Let them do it with real "change". Leave FF/FG out of it. If it's a failure, let SF own it. If I'm wrong and it's a success, let SF have the clear credit - I'll be wrong, but with the significant consolation that I'll be living in a better country.

Ush1

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Not my fault you can't comprehend.
Ongoing if I make any comment about any entity on any issue I'll be sure to mention Bobby Sands and Martin McGuinness :rolleyes:

I'll ask one more time, did you read the OP and thread title?

James Brown

Ush1 wrote: »

I'll ask one more time, did you read the OP and thread title?

Look you tried to fit a square peg into a round hole. Move on.
We've had discussions on housing policy and homelessness and the over riding topic is the election result.
My post was on the british view as it relates to brexit.

oh, nearly forgot....Gerry Adams something...

FrancieBrady

tjhook wrote: »

SF has already said they'd rather not have a coalition with FF or FG.

Let SF put together whatever other coalition they can. I see no benefit to having FF or FG along for the ride, to be blamed when promises can't be fulfilled. Both FF and FG have said before the election that they wouldn't go into coalition with SF, so it's fair to assume that the voters who voted FF/FG voted with that knowledge.

Governing is tricky. Make life more expensive/difficult for companies, and they move out or do less business here. Less tax. Fewer jobs. On the other hand, make life more expensive/difficult for citizens, and they revolt. Quite possibly leading to the same end result. I think that's what's happening here.

I'm confident that SF in government will make life worse for people overall. Maybe better in some ways, but worse in others. Let's see. Let them do it with real "change". Leave FF/FG out of it. If it's a failure, let SF own it. If I'm wrong and it's a success, let SF have the clear credit - I'll be wrong, but with the significant consolation that I'll be living in a better country.

My point was that all any of them can do is 'try' to form a government. That was the mandate given by their electorates.
The parties put themselves forward as potential governments or government partners.

None of them put themselves forward as the 'opposition'.

Yet Leo, ignoring the mandate he has been given, has said he is going into opposition and wants to be there.

If SF fail, there is then a path to government for both FF and FG without breaking their pledge to not go in with SF.

Ush1

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Look you tried to fit a square peg into a round hole. Move on.
We've had discussions on housing policy and homelessness and the over riding topic is the election result.
My post was on the british view as it relates to brexit.

oh, nearly forgot....Gerry Adams something...

It's not my fault you can't stay on topic. Quite ironic you accuse me of irrelevant comments.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

My point was that all any of them can do is 'try' to form a government. That was the mandate given by their electorates.
The parties put themselves forward as potential governments or government partners.

None of them put themselves forward as the 'opposition'.

Yet Leo, ignoring the mandate he has been given, has said he is going into opposition and wants to be there.

If SF fail, there is then a path to government for both FF and FG without breaking their pledge to not go in with SF.

At the end of the day, it all comes down to the political nous and the diplomatic and negotiating skills of the various leaders. Mary-Lou has said she can form a government without FF and FG. Let her off. If she fails, that's on her, not on FF, not on FG.

When she fails, and she will fail, whether it is in creating a government, or failing to keep it going for more than a few months, then I would guess that FF and FG might do the right thing for the country and step in to take up the slack. She'll have had her chance.

Odhinn

blanch152 wrote: »

It has worn thin already.

An English neighbour of mine was telling me earlier that there were fellas in his workplace apologising to him for Cullinane saying they didn't realise what they were voting for.

I believe ye. Honestly.

tjhook

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Yet Leo, ignoring the mandate he has been given, has said he is going into opposition and wants to be there.

If SF fail, there is then a path to government for both FF and FG without breaking their pledge to not go in with SF.

Surely Leo's mandate is to defined by the promises he made in the run up to the election? In the same way that the Green party would be correct in declining coalition with a party that didn't have a significant emphasis on environmental issues?

I'm not sure I understand the second point above. If I read it correctly, we're on the same page - I.e. if SF fail either to put together a coalition or to govern well, then there will be an opportunity for all other parties in a future election. There's no need for FF or FG to go into government with SF.

James Brown

Ush1 wrote: »

It's not my fault you can't stay on topic. Quite ironic you accuse me of irrelevant comments.

You claimed your post related to mine. When I embarrassed you on that you now claim it was my post was off topic. Sit down.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

It has worn thin already.

An English neighbour of mine was telling me earlier that there were fellas in his workplace apologising to him for Cullinane saying they didn't realise what they were voting for.

Was he holding two pints?

storker

blanch152 wrote: »

At the end of the day, it all comes down to the political nous and the diplomatic and negotiating skills of the various leaders. Mary-Lou has said she can form a government without FF and FG. Let her off. If she fails, that's on her, not on FF, not on FG.

I'm pretty sure she said her preference was to try form a government without FF or FG. Everyone knows what the numbers look like and how difficult that will be. IF she fails, only those who are sore at the election result will consider it to be "on her". And if she fails to form a coalition with FF, who "it's on" will depend on what causes the negotiations to fail. Not that that will stop the business-as-usual fanboys from beating their chests and shouting victory. :rolleyes:

Ush1

Matt Barrett wrote: »

You claimed your post related to mine. When I embarrassed you on that you now claim it was my post was off topic. Sit down.

Your post was off topic and a very transparent dig at "de thick Brits".

Ignoring that SF voters were largely Brexiteers with country songs.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

At the end of the day, it all comes down to the political nous and the diplomatic and negotiating skills of the various leaders. Mary-Lou has said she can form a government without FF and FG. Let her off. If she fails, that's on her, not on FF, not on FG.

When she fails, and she will fail, whether it is in creating a government, or failing to keep it going for more than a few months, then I would guess that FF and FG might do the right thing for the country and step in to take up the slack. She'll have had her chance.

Where did she say 'she can'? She said she wants to try. Are you looking for brickbats to throw again blanch? Second video on this page.

https://www.rte.ie/news/election-2020/2020/0211/1114491-election-outcome-government/