Gardaí: Provo Army Council oversees PIRA & SF

smurgen

No early morning raids reported . That Mary Lou must have outfoxed everyone!

FrancieBrady

SafeSurfer wrote: »

What absolute nonsense. Many voters are party loyalists and will vote for “their” party whether they are or are not in government. A vote for a party in opposition is not necessarily a “protest vote”. To claim otherwise is ridiculous.

You guys need to get used to the idea of voters who are not 'faithful' to any party. Those days are gone.

If you are not happy with a government you protest and vote for another party. Normal(not fickle or unique) democracy and normal reaction to bad governance. If SF cannot convince in a new campaign, well, that is normal too.

BarryD2

woohoo!!! wrote: »

So you think partition is a good thing?

Yawn.. of course not, we'd all love to see a peacefully united Ireland by common agreement among the majority of people who inhabit the island.

And that is the position more or less of all the parties in this Republic, we aspire to it but it's not top of the agenda.

Whereas in SF, this is what drives them - their primary policy. That's a filter that could yield disastrous decisions if they get anywhere near power in this state. SF needs to sort out it's differences with our Unionist brethren up North first. Show us that works and is the way forward.

Mortelaro

Fickle " changing frequently, especially as regards one's loyalties or affections."

In 8 months a move from zero to hero fo SF, from huge losses in council elections to charity House free loaders and candidates on holidays that didn't campaign getting elected

Textbook fickle

while I'm here, before more insult is feigned and I have to say I don't believe it again, describing it as a fickle vote is simply saying it in its parts, doesn't stay as a protest, its content, doesn't stay the same, it's never a new core, it's characteristics always change depending on how big or small the issue de jour is

The biggest concern for the beneficiaries of the protest vote of course is, a government is formed that doesn't include them that actually reasonably for most solves the issues and SF ends up sidelined again

Their quick answer to that threat is the water protest route via rally's, it seems

FrancieBrady

Mortelaro wrote: »

Fickle " changing frequently, especially as regards one's loyalties or affections."

In 8 months a move from zero to hero fo SF, from huge losses in council elections to charity House free loaders and candidates on holidays that didn't campaign getting elected

Textbook fickle

while I'm here, before more insult is feigned and I have to say I don't believe it again, describing it as a fickle vote is simply saying it in its parts, doesn't stay as a protest, its content, doesn't stay the same, it's never a new core, it's characteristics always change depending on how big or small the issue de jour is

The biggest concern for the beneficiaries of the protest vote of course is, a government is formed that doesn't include them that actually reasonably for most solves the issues and SF ends up sidelined again

Their quick answer to that threat is the water protest route via rally's, it seems

More belittling.

You need to come to terms with what happened. The days of party loyalty are over, there are fewer and fewer free votes for the power swop parties to depend on. Vote share down from a high of 85% to 42% approx.

Nothing 'fickle' about that, it has been a steady decline.

Mortelaro

FrancieBrady wrote: »

More belittling.

More Feigning

You need to come to terms with what happened. The days of party loyalty are over, there are fewer and fewer free votes for the power swop parties to depend on. Vote share down from a high of 85% to 42% approx.

Nothing 'fickle' about that, it has been a steady decline.

That's a redistribution
You need to stop conflating it with a more spontaneously fickle protest vote
Or perhaps its the lesser of two evils for you? Preferring to run down this tangent instead of the thread topic which has ye so Angry
That's ok too

JoeCasey

Why dont the scum want to vote for Insincere, Grey robots, that make a point to speak over each other and say absolutely nothing.

FrancieBrady

Mortelaro wrote: »

More Feigning

That's a redistribution
You need to stop conflating it with a more spontaneously fickle protest vote
Or perhaps its the lesser of two evils for you? Preferring to run down this tangent instead of the thread topic which has ye so Angry
That's ok too

Why would I be suddenly 'angry' about the thread topic?

I voted for SF in this GE. It was precisely this type of scaremongering and waffling to deflect away from their own failures that led to my vote being part of an historic day. The end of the comfy power swap in this country. FF and FG finally forced together to take the rap or the plaudits together.

I'd be angry if you guys get sense and finally start campaigning on the actual issues. By all means keep opening and contributing to threads like this.

Mortelaro

Its simple enough,a pinch of salt with all posts on social media really
There is a belief to which I subscribe that there are 2 types of posters on SM
Genuine and party sponsored
Ergo pronouncements made here dont carry water
They do in real life,on tv and radio debates or in newspapers where real people are involved
I dont believe most of the stuff spouted here no matter who or what is said by me or anyone else
Its interesting sometimes to engage though not always

FrancieBrady

Mortelaro wrote: »

Its simple enough,a pinch of salt with all posts on social media really
There is a belief to which I subscribe that there are 2 types of posters on SM
Genuine and party sponsored
Ergo pronouncements made here dont carry water
They do in real life,on tv and radio debates or in newspapers where real people are involved
I dont believe most of the stuff spouted here no matter who or what is said by me or anyone else
Its interesting sometimes to engage though not always

You ok there?
That post is kinda like the internet version of mumbling to yourself.

Mortelaro

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You ok there?
That post is kinda like the internet version of mumbling to yourself.

Haha, is that all you have now?

FrancieBrady

Mortelaro wrote: »

Haha, is that all you have now?

I'm mean't to have a response to that?

Was there even a question in there not to mention a coherent point?

Seemed to me to be a plaintive 'note to self' to get off social media and you accidentally hit 'submit reply'.
If that is where your brain is at, I actually advise that you follow through!

UDAWINNER

Mortelaro wrote: »

Its simple enough,a pinch of salt with all posts on social media really
There is a belief to which I subscribe that there are 2 types of posters on SM
Genuine and party sponsored
Ergo pronouncements made here dont carry water
They do in real life,on tv and radio debates or in newspapers where real people are involved
I dont believe most of the stuff spouted here no matter who or what is said by me or anyone else
Its interesting sometimes to engage though not always

I think someone needs a time out,
Record numbers on trolleys, waiting lists.
More Homeless than ever in the country,
But hey all is well, keep voting FFG and they'll do nothing for 4 more years.

SafeSurfer

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You guys need to get used to the idea of voters who are not 'faithful' to any party. Those days are gone.

If you are not happy with a government you protest and vote for another party. Normal(not fickle or unique) democracy and normal reaction to bad governance. If SF cannot convince in a new campaign, well, that is normal too.

Your assertion was that “any vote” against a sitting government is a protest vote.

Again, simply untrue.

Mortelaro

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I'm mean't to have a response to that?

Was there even a question in there not to mention a coherent point?

Seemed to me to be a plaintive 'note to self' to get off social media and you accidentally hit 'submit reply'.
If that is where your brain is at, I actually advise that you follow through!

Nonsense, I was defining social media
More invective again above I see as a symptom of your (or somebodys)anger at different view points
Convinced of that early on in thread
It doesn't matter

FrancieBrady

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Your assertion was that “any vote” against a sitting government is a protest vote.

Again, simply untrue.

Diehard party voters can be said to be permanently 'protesting' against the other crowd.

PROTEST: express an objection to what someone has said or done.
"before Muriel could protest, he had filled both glasses"

FrancieBrady

Mortelaro wrote: »

Nonsense, I was defining social media
More invective again above I see as a symptom of your (or somebodys)anger at different view points
Convinced of that early on in thread
It doesn't matter

Invective? Where was that in that post?

If you 'don't believe most of the stuff here' I am genuinely amazed, why you are still here.
Why would you torture yourself like that?

Mortelaro

He/she/they using the dictionary now
Hope I've started a trend

SafeSurfer

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Diehard party voters can be said to be permanently 'protesting' against the other crowd.

PROTEST: express an objection to what someone has said or done.
"before Muriel could protest, he had filled both glasses"

You obviously misunderstand what a protest vote is defined as.

Protest Vote

In an election, a protest vote is a vote against the party you usually support in order to show disapproval of something they are doing or planning to do.

But keep telling yourself you are right.

Mortelaro

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Invective? Where was that in that post?

If you 'don't believe most of the stuff here' I am genuinely amazed, why you are still here.
Why would you torture yourself like that?

I'm sure you think that of all opposing posters here,youd of course be mistaken
I find the invective you resort to amusing actually at this stage
Its obviously for you preferable to discussing the thread topic

JohnnyFlash

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I'm mean't to have a response to that?

Was there even a question in there not to mention a coherent point?

Seemed to me to be a plaintive 'note to self' to get off social media and you accidentally hit 'submit reply'.
If that is where your brain is at, I actually advise that you follow through!

I’d suggest a lad who spends 18 hours a day dogmatically defending a party he claims to have voted for the 1st time in the last election probably isn’t in the best position to go on about other people’s usage of social media.

The question I asked that was avoided yesterday is does any other European political party with aspirations for government have links to an illegal criminal organisation?

FrancieBrady

Mortelaro wrote: »

I'm sure you think that of all opposing posters here,youd of course be mistaken
I find the invective you resort to amusing actually at this stage
Its obviously for you preferable to discussing the thread topic

I certainly do not think that of all opposing posters. I thoroughly enjoy debating with them.

You are just going to keep using the word 'invective' now without pointing out where it was in that post.

I fully agree I use robust language at times, but I toned it down when dealing with you as you seem sensitive about it. So if you could point out where I erred again, that would be good.

SafeSurfer

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You are belittling my vote by calling it fickle and a base protest vote when it was actually considered and deliberate and will remain if there is another election.

That is not courteous to begin with. I take exception to the electorate being demeaned.

You seriously expect anyone to believe that you “take exception to the electorate being demeaned” when you defend a campaign of violence which the overwhelming number of the electorate rejected?

FrancieBrady

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

I’d suggest a lad who spends 18 hours a day dogmatically defending a party he claims to have voted for the 1st time in the last election probably isn’t in the best position to go on about other people’s usage of social media.

I work online, I sell stuff, which requires me to be in front of screens or have access to one almost 24/7, 7 days a week.
I respond to posts on here when I am notified of them. I by no means spend 18 hours on Boards.ie.

The question I asked that was avoided yesterday is does any other European political party with aspirations for government have links to an illegal criminal organisation?

I don't know or care to tell you the honest truth. I think somebody else submitted a list of 5 or 6 yesterday. If you want to look for it.

FrancieBrady

SafeSurfer wrote: »

You seriously expect anyone to believe that you “take exception to the electorate being demeaned” when you defend a campaign of violence which the overwhelming number of the electorate rejected?

I have always expressed the view that the violence in the north was wrong, all of it, from the very beginning.

SafeSurfer

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I have always expressed the view that the violence in the north was wrong, all of it, from the very beginning.

You have defended the use of violence on this forum by expressing the view that those involved in violence had no other choice.

facehugger99

It's pretty obvious, that a Party that has gone, in less than 12 months, from single figures in the Local elections, had a disastrous Presidential election but somehow hoovered up 25% of the vote is a major beneficiary of a sizable but transient protest vote.

It really doesn't matter what Boards local SF Shill-a-bots have to say on the matter.

Just like Peter Casey's vote in the Presidential election, the Shinner-vote is likely to be just a mirage.

FrancieBrady

SafeSurfer wrote: »

You have defended the use of violence on this forum by expressing the view that those involved in violence had no other choice.

I have never said that actually.

My view is that the primary reason for political violence on this island is an unworkable partition of it.
I primarily blame the two governments for the outbreak of a conflict/war, as it was them who had the power and responsibility to stop the inevitable happening.

There is absolutely no reason that I can see that a GFA type settlement could not have been achieved in 1969 if the will to stand up to a bigoted sectarian Unionist majority was there. Sadly it wasn't. It took 40 years and over 3000 deaths for it to emerge.
SF and the IRA have there share of the blame, without a doubt.

Boggles

facehugger99 wrote: »

It's pretty obvious, that a Party that has gone, in less than 12 months, from single figures in the Local elections, had a disastrous Presidential election but somehow hoovered up 25% of the vote is a major beneficiary of a sizable but transient protest vote.

It really doesn't matter what Boards local SF Shill-a-bots have to say on the matter.

Just like Peter Casey's vote in the Presidential election, the Shinner-vote is likely to be just a mirage.

The locals are a complete different type of election, all though note worthy it's not an exact science. You can't just look at X in isolation and get Y.

A more comprehensive set of the data would be to look at previous general elections over a qualifying time period.

The reality is SF has grown it's support in every general election the past 20 years.

No other party can claim that.

So writing it off a "protest vote" doesn't tally when you look at their trend.

holyhead

The SF TD for Louth was being interviewed by a British TV news program. In the background was a picture of Bobby Sands.