FG to still just do nothing for the next 5 years - part 2

FrancieBrady

McMurphy wrote: »

Was that the confidence in Eoghan Murphy vote that you're referring to Francie?

He scraped through with 3 votes on that one.

Michael Lowry.
Noel Grealish.
Dennis Naughten.

None of the 3 would be a stranger to controversial headline.

There was that, and this:

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/individual-government-deals-on-the-table-for-regional-independent-tds-1.4270959

James Brown

Not to mention getting cosy with Verona 're-education camps' Murphy.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

There was that, and this:

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/individual-government-deals-on-the-table-for-regional-independent-tds-1.4270959

So they weren't looking for him back in the party.

Glad that is cleared up.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

So they weren't looking for him back in the party.

Glad that is cleared up.

If he guarantees to vote for them, he may as well be a member. It's clear FG had no issues with him.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If he guarantees to vote for them, he may as well be a member. It's clear FG had no issues with him.

No, it is the opposite, they haven't let him back into the party so clearly, obviously, plainly, factually, truly, undeniably, evidently, unmistakably, manifestly and visibly, they still have an issue with him.

If only it was so clear about other politicians.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

No, it is the opposite, they haven't let him back into the party so clearly, obviously, plainly, factually, truly, undeniably, evidently, unmistakably, manifestly and visibly, they still have an issue with him.

If only it was so clear about other politicians.

But he is a de facto member who votes for them - and he would have guaranteed it. And nobody said NO in FG or here.

skimpydoo

blanch152 wrote: »

So they weren't looking for him back in the party.

Glad that is cleared up.

If you were FG leader would you be happy to have Lowry backing you? I wouldn't.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

But he is a de facto member who votes for them - and he would have guaranteed it. And nobody said NO in FG or here.

That is a new-found term - "de facto member".

I am trying to understand it and maybe best if you gave examples of where else would it apply?

Would a "good republican" be a "de facto member" of Sinn Fein?
Would a convicted IRA terrorist be a "de facto member" of Sinn Fein as well?
Would a convicted child abuser who got a job working with children thanks to Sinn Fein be a "de facto member"?

How is a "de facto" member defined?

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

That is a new-found term - "de facto member".

I am trying to understand it and maybe best if you gave examples of where else would it apply?

Would a "good republican" be a "de facto member" of Sinn Fein?

Is he elected as a TD and garunteeing to vote for them to keep them in power?

Would a convicted IRA terrorist be a "de facto member" of Sinn Fein as well?

People convicted in the conflict/war and who signed up to the GFA are members of SF...did you not know this? What relevance it has here, only you know, because I don't.

Would a convicted child abuser who got a job working with children thanks to Sinn Fein be a "de facto member"?

Again, other than a pathetic attempt to deflect, what relevance has this?

How is a "de facto" member defined?

One who guarantees to vote for the party in a deal to keep them in power. As outlined here:

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/individual-government-deals-on-the-table-for-regional-independent-tds-1.4270959

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Is he elected as a TD and garunteeing to vote for them to keep them in power?

People convicted in the conflict/war and who signed up to the GFA are members of SF...did you not know this? What relevance it has here, only you know, because I don't.


Again, other than a pathetic attempt to deflect, what relevance has this?



One who guarantees to vote for the party in a deal to keep them in power. As outlined here:

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/individual-government-deals-on-the-table-for-regional-independent-tds-1.4270959

So the Green TDs are "de facto" members of Fine Gael?

And Tony Gregory was a "de facto" member of Fianna Fail?

I dare you to explain that to their faces, if you could.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

So the Green TDs are "de facto" members of Fine Gael?

And Tony Gregory was a "de facto" member of Fianna Fail?

I dare you to explain that to their faces, if you could.

If they have guaranteed to vote with them in a deal ...yes, they have 'coalesced' = come together to form one mass or whole.

FG have no issues with Lowry when it comes to seeking his support/coalescing with him. Fact.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If they have guaranteed to vote with them in a deal ...yes, they have 'coalesced' = come together to form one mass or whole.

FG have no issues with Lowry when it comes to seeking his support/coalescing with him. Fact.

That sentence at the end does not make him a "de facto member" which is an invented fiction.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

That sentence at the end does not make him a "de facto member" which is an invented fiction.

Let's look at word defenitions again:

De-facto = existing in fact.

If he has guaranteed his vote to a party or government, he is 'in fact' to all intents and purposes, a member of that party or government.

If he decides not to vote with them, then he isn't.

FG had no issues doing a deal like this...that is the point.

smurgen

Haha.

https://twitter.com/josephamadigan/status/1375828892490080260?s=19

McMurphy

smurgen wrote: »

Haha.

https://twitter.com/josephamadigan/status/1375828892490080260?s=19

One hour closer to the end of this shîtshow coalition of chaos and confusion!

James Brown

smurgen wrote: »

Haha.

https://twitter.com/josephamadigan/status/1375828892490080260?s=19

This is the type of stuff social media marketers do to keep your profile up.
We are paying for this ****e.

Jinglejangle69

smurgen wrote: »

Haha.

https://twitter.com/josephamadigan/status/1375828892490080260?s=19

Should have had Easter eggs instead.

More informative.

Ten of Swords

smurgen wrote: »

Haha.

https://twitter.com/josephamadigan/status/1375828892490080260?s=19

Smurgen, one week ban for ignoring threadban

James Brown

James Brown wrote: »

This is the type of stuff social media marketers do to keep your profile up.
We are paying for this ****e.

How are you paying for it exactly?


Again, there are two false narratives going around when it comes to politicians using social media.


1). That the Government's Strategic Communications Unit was going to be used to spread propaganda on behalf of the parties that made up the Government. Not true - those ads saying 'a message from the Government of Ireland' you hear/see relating to things like Covid/HPV vaccination/Brexit were going to paid out from a single contract as opposed to every department having to tender for their own comms services. Cost optimisation from the civil service. I think we can all agree that was a good idea!

2). That politicians sending tweets in a personal capacity are somehow open to abuse from no-necks on social media. They aren't.

James Brown

Deleted User wrote: »

How are you paying for it exactly?


Again, there are two false narratives going around when it comes to politicians using social media.


1). That the Government's Strategic Communications Unit was going to be used to spread propaganda on behalf of the parties that made up the Government. Not true - those ads saying 'a message from the Government of Ireland' you hear/see relating to things like Covid/HPV vaccination/Brexit were going to paid out from a single contract as opposed to every department having to tender for their own comms services. Cost optimisation from the civil service. I think we can all agree that was a good idea!

2). That politicians sending tweets in a personal capacity are somehow open to abuse from no-necks on social media. They aren't.

Taxes. Do you think it's paid for by a magic money tree, (am I using it right?)?
We pay for her Social Media chap. He's on salary.
You obviously aren't up to speed but decided to try have a pop.

Tweet deal - Madigan uses €20,000 of taxpayers' cash on her social media image

1) They have special advisors we pay for. Be it a unit or individual minister basis, what's the odds?
2) We are all open to criticism and abuse. If Josepha is more delicate than 'normal' people, that's unfortunate.

James Brown

This is interesting.

FINE GAEL HAS insisted it does not buy Facebook ‘likes’ after a post-Budget Q&A with junior minister Simon Harris attracted over 2,500 ‘likes’, many of them from overseas profiles.

The party faced accusations last night of buying Facebook ‘likes’ in an attempt to boost its profile on the social media website after the post with Harris’s Q&A attracted thousands of ‘likes’ in contrast to many of the others status updates on the page.

So we have FG using nefarious foreign means to garner Facebook Likes. The tax payer funding Social Media gurus for their members and of course the classic suggestion by Varadkar that FG run anonymous fake accounts to talk up the party.
Add to that the amount they spend going way beyond the two bigger parties, it's more than Ironic they try preach to others regarding Social Media IMO.

Bubbaclaus

Must be a quiet news week when articles from 2014 are being dug up as "interesting".

Bubbaclaus

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

Must be a quiet news week when articles from 2014 are being dug up as "interesting".

Citizen Journalism.

James Brown

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

Must be a quiet news week when articles from 2014 are being dug up as "interesting".

No, Varadkar is under criminal investigation

James Brown

Deleted User wrote: »

Citizen Journalism.

So you read where I showed we paid for Josepha's Social Media?

FrancieBrady

James Brown wrote: »

This is interesting.



So we have FG using nefarious foreign means to garner Facebook Likes. The tax payer funding Social Media gurus for their members and of course the classic suggestion by Varadkar that FG run anonymous fake accounts to talk up the party.
Add to that the amount they spend going way beyond the two bigger parties, it's more than Ironic they try preach to others regarding Social Media IMO.

Ah drat James, that is no longer relevant because of the 'timestamp rule'. Must not be allowed to interfere with the latest outrage potential.

blanch152

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

Must be a quiet news week when articles from 2014 are being dug up as "interesting".

Thankfully I didn't see that article, but it is a sign of desperation. Social media now is infinitely different to seven years ago, something you think might have crossed that poster's mind.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

Thankfully I didn't see that article, but it is a sign of desperation. Social media now is infinitely different to seven years ago, something you think might have crossed that poster's mind.

So trying to rig 'likes' using a firm abroad is okay but having people based abroad is different because ...seven years? No, don't think so.
It shows FG are willing to use people abroad to sell the pretence of support. Where are the cries of foreign donations or 'nefarious' and so on? Just little quips. Hypocritical, no surprise.

Bubbaclaus

James Brown wrote: »

So trying to rig 'likes' using a firm abroad is okay but having people based abroad is different because ...seven years? No, don't think so.
It shows FG are willing to use people abroad to sell the pretence of support. Where are the cries of foreign donations or 'nefarious' and so on? Just little quips. Hypocritical, no surprise.

You seem to be posting an unverified allegation from a 2014 article as a factual occurance there James. Any subsequent article to that which shows it was true at all no?

McMurphy

Wondered why "Regina Doherty" was trending......

Dear God.

https://twitter.com/FancyVegasPro/status/1377901693359230980?s=19