The wondrous adventures of Sinn Fein (part 3) Mod Notes and Threadbanned List in OP

jimmycrackcorm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

To carry out what Enda falsely promised in 2011.

So you've apparently moved on to Sinn Fein's false promises now?
How is SF going to fix housing for example - get former IRA prisoners to start laying bricks?

wicklowstevo

TheCitizen wrote: »

I thought the Regency attacks was the Hutch gang attacking the Kinahan gang in reprisal for the Kinahans murdering one of theirs? Amazing how everything on this thread morphs into it was Sinn Fein that did it. The conjecture on here if anything backfires on the fans of their political opponents on here.

a sf party member was involved in the murder . not an unusual statement that

but this one is on trial before the scc.
it would seem to be relevant to a political party who claims to be a legit political party dont you think ?

FrancieBrady

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

So you've apparently moved on to Sinn Fein's false promises now?
How is SF going to fix housing for example - get former IRA prisoners to start laying bricks?

The central tenet of Enda's promise in 2011 was a new way of politics here. He was bull****ting (aka lying) about that.

All I require of SF is to break the power swap, as I have come to believe that nothing will ever change until that happens. If the SD's Labour etc look like doing it, I will support them too.

If SF fail to deliver on their promises, they'll be judged on that and receive votes on the basis of what they do.

FrancieBrady

wicklowstevo wrote: »

a sf party member was involved in the murder . not an unusual statement that

but this one is on trial before the scc.
it would seem to be relevant to a political party who claims to be a legit political party dont you think ?

You forgot to mention you found him guilty before he was even tried. (it's assumed in your first sentence)

wicklowstevo

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

So you've apparently moved on to Sinn Fein's false promises now?
How is SF going to fix housing for example - get former IRA prisoners to start laying bricks?

priory hall would suggest that while that might be lucrative for the party the quality of workmanship might not be up to scratch


far better suited to blowing things up historically anyway :)

wicklowstevo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You forgot to mention you found him guilty before he was even tried. (it's assumed in your first sentence)

true ,

every one should get a fair trial shouldn't they ? after all he might be not be guilty this time .....

jimmycrackcorm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

This is important in my opinion...SF didn't reap the benefit of that fall straight away...it wasn't a 'protest vote' swinging away to somebody else. They increased their polling figures gradually through the campaign suggesting to me that people were persuaded by what they were offering. They seemed to have kept that vote and grown it by a few percent.

It absolutely was a protest vote. If they were so confident about their numbers, then why regret afterward, that they didn't run more candidates?. The reason was they weren't expecting this additional transient vote after the poor showing in the 2019 local elections.

TheCitizen

RandomName2 wrote: »

Not necessarily. If SF sheds support to a party like SD then SD would get into government a minority partner in a coalition, no problem.

We see similar situations in Europe. In Netherlands the traditional parties have stated they will not go into government with PVV, in Belgium the traditional parties have stated they will not go intro government with either PB or N-VA, in France, NR, in Spain, Vox, in Sweden, SD. These are not minor parties. In some of these countries they are the largest parties, but while they remain too toxic to do deals with by the other large parties they remain unable to form governments.

Throughout Europe the different parties see this. The populist parties for their part sometimes try to shed some of their less desirable trappings and distance themselves from older members who are extremists. The mainstream parties for their part may consider addressing some of the reasons for these populist parties rise and improve their own policies as a result.

There’s a lot of wishful thinking there.

When the results were coming out after the last election Micháel Martin came on TV with a softened stance towards a coalition with SF.

However when the results became clearer and it became a situation where FF had only one seat more than SF and they wouldn’t have been the senior partner in the arrangement, O’Callaghan and Chambers et al came out with a very different tune and Micháel said nothing and instead horse traded with FG.

The European parties you mention above btw, are they not in coalitions because their views are ideologically very different from the traditional parties as you call them. Are they Euro sceptic, are they regressive in terms of immigration and integration and sexual equality issues etc.?

SF don’t have very different views in terms of social policies to FF and FG. They’re not Eurosceptic, they’re not dog whistling to any anti immigrant agenda. They have ties to the PIRA who were involved in a conflict that ended over 20 years ago, a little more water under the bridge and depending on how the numbers fall after the next election and FF or FG will try to set up a coalition with them. Either that or SF will get big enough to set up a government with others other than FFG.

FrancieBrady

wicklowstevo wrote: »

true ,

every one should get a fair trial shouldn't they ? after all he might be not be guilty this time .....

Nowt like a democrat criticising others for not being democrats, I say! :D

Two feet in it there Stevo.

FrancieBrady

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

It absolutely was a protest vote. If they were so confident about their numbers, then why regret afterward, that they didn't run more candidates?. The reason was they weren't expecting this additional transient vote after the poor showing in the 2019 local elections.

What's a 'protest vote' in a General Election?

That is just PR softening of the fact that the electorate rejected the current government.

'Protest'?

It was a 'Sling yer hook' vote. But FG/FF decided to arrogantly ignore that. We'll see what the electorate think, next time out.

wicklowstevo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Nowt like a democrat criticising others for not being democrats, I say! :D

Two feet in it there Stevo.

not sure you even know what you mean there


democracy's aren't run by a few people in a back room of a pub in derry or belfast as far s i know ,

i suppose they really should have moved to zoom by now :pac::pac:

FrancieBrady

wicklowstevo wrote: »

not sure you even know what you mean there


democracy's aren't run by a few people in a back room of a pub in derry or belfast as far s i know ,

i suppose they really should have moved to zoom by now :pac::pac:

YOU found the guy guilty before a trial.

Trying to pivot the conversation somewhere else won't work.

Foot in it Stevo...your own foot in your own mouth, unaided.

TheCitizen

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

It absolutely was a protest vote. If they were so confident about their numbers, then why regret afterward, that they didn't run more candidates?. The reason was they weren't expecting this additional transient vote after the poor showing in the 2019 local elections.

That and candidates don’t grow on trees. It’s hard to find good ones in a short space of time, that’s how they ended up promoting one or two not fit for purpose.

TheCitizen

wicklowstevo wrote: »

a sf party member was involved in the murder . not an unusual statement that

but this one is on trial before the scc.
it would seem to be relevant to a political party who claims to be a legit political party dont you think ?

An ex SF member. An important distinction that you conveniently left out.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You forgot to mention you found him guilty before he was even tried. (it's assumed in your first sentence)

The "but" in his second sentence renders your point completely void.

wicklowstevo wrote: »

a sf party member was involved in the murder . not an unusual statement that

but this one is on trial before the scc.
it would seem to be relevant to a political party who claims to be a legit political party dont you think ?

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

The "but" in his second sentence renders your point completely void.

'A SF member was involved in a murder'.

That was the statement as is the general tone of the conversation here about this. His guilt is assumed on the basis of an allegation/charge...where have we seen that happen before on here?

Talking about trials after that claim is moot...a 'show trial' maybe?

blanch152

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/data-protection-commissioner-makes-first-public-comments-sincesinn-fein-secret-abu-database-40365649.html

A very interesting article this. A couple of points of note. This is particularly damning:

"Appearing at an Oireachtas Justice Committee hearing, Ms Dixon was asked by Fine Gael Senator Barry Ward about the rules regarding a political party setting up a national database on voters and entering information on perceived voting intentions.

Ms Dixon said “in the hypothetical scenario” presented by Mr Ward it is “difficult to imagine what legal basis any data controller would have to create a centralised database from varied sources without the knowledge of data subjects”."

The whataboutery merchants peddling the all parties do it line would do well to take careful note of this bit:

"Ms Dixon said there was a ruling from the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in 2016, in which the Judge Advocate General said that “it's these large data sets that are of primary importance, and the primary purpose of data protection law. It’s the reason why it's of primordial importance.”"

Essentially the ECJ doesn't see a canvasser with a tattered electoral register and a pencil as a real issue, it is the compilation of a large database with search functions and the information accessible to all SF members as confirmed by one on here that will create a huge issue.

Though, like the poor fool in Dumb and Dumber who believed there is a chance, there is some hope for the SF believers:

"It's theoretically possible to legitimise it".

Then again, she can't say otherwise as that would mean condemning SF before an investigation. The rest of us can hold a sensible opinion of where this is going, and that is not to a good place for SF.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

'A SF member was involved in a murder'.

That was the statement as is the general tone of the conversation here about this. His guilt is assumed on the basis of an allegation/charge...where have we seen that happen before on here?

Talking about trials after that claim is moot...a 'show trial' maybe?

Rubbish, he qualified it with a but.

There is nothing wrong with a poster here holding the personal opinion that a SF member was involved in a murder, while acknowledging that it has still gone to trial.

You are now in the Orwellian space of trying to once again control opinions.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Rubbish, he qualified it with a but.

There is nothing wrong with a poster here holding the personal opinion that a SF member was involved in a murder, while acknowledging that it has still gone to trial.

You are now in the Orwellian space of trying to once again control opinions.

It may be his opinion but it is an opinion arrived at without a trial.

Funny that you have 'principled' objections to the obscenity of kangaroo courts given you are conducting them yourselves.

RandomName2

TheCitizen wrote: »

SF don’t have very different views in terms of social policies to FF and FG. They’re not Eurosceptic

they’re not dog whistling to any anti immigrant agenda. They have ties to the PIRA who were involved in a conflict that ended over 20 years ago, a little more water under the bridge and depending on how the numbers fall after the next election and FF or FG will try to set up a coalition with them. Either that or SF will get big enough to set up a government with others other than FFG.

On paper none of the parties are Euroskeptic.

In practice I4C, PBP and SF are Soft-Euroskeptic.

The populist parties in Europe vary a lot in terms of policy. Generally they are opportunistic in relation to focusing on areas that traditional parties have ignored. SF shares some of these, but doesn't share others, which is really typical among populist parties as they don't all sing off the same hymn sheet.

SF is nationalistic, tapping into a poorer demographic through policies in relation to social protection, with some general saber rattling and generally jingoistic cultural inheritance. Their original cornerstone supporters are now seen as a bit of an embarrassment (sectarian, militant) but can't be entirely dumped. All these things are mirrored in many of the populist parties across Europe. They aren't anti-immigrant, and their support of traditional values don't go so far as to endorse the Church, those are two of the ways that they don't look like a lot of the populist parties on the continent.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It may be his opinion but it is an opinion arrived at without a trial.

Funny that you have 'principled' objections to the obscenity of kangaroo courts given you are conducting them yourselves.

I have no issue with someone holding an opinion based on reasoned probability.

That doesn't fit the test of beyond a reasonable doubt and doesn't mean they will be convicted in a court. So, for example, I will continue to hold the opinion that Mairia Cahill was raped by Martin Morris and nothing you and others would say will change that.

I haven't convicted Martin Morris, I haven't kneecapped him, I haven't buried him in an unmarked grave, but I hold the reasoned opinion that he is guilty of rape.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

I have no issue with someone holding an opinion based on reasoned probability.

That doesn't fit the test of beyond a reasonable doubt and doesn't mean they will be convicted in a court. So, for example, I will continue to hold the opinion that Mairia Cahill was raped by Martin Morris and nothing you and others would say will change that.

I haven't convicted Martin Morris, I haven't kneecapped him, I haven't buried him in an unmarked grave, but I hold the reasoned opinion that he is guilty of rape.

But you would hang him if the penalty was hanging.

Without a fair trial and the vindication of his rights.

That is what it is...you are correct. And democratic it isn't.

wicklowstevo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

YOU found the guy guilty before a trial.

Trying to pivot the conversation somewhere else won't work.

Foot in it Stevo...your own foot in your own mouth, unaided.

aw now i see your mistake ,

your confusing democracy with justice ,

different words mean different thing.

i ll give you an example . the gfa was as a result of democratic vote.

the release of multiple murderers and assorted deranged terrorist criminals was as a result of that.

but that was not justice.

looking for justice for victims of crime and terrorism is a common discussion here

once again ill say that a poster with your allegiances accusing some one else of deflection is irony in the extreme and is lost on few here


do you understand now ?

RandomName2

blanch152 wrote: »

That doesn't fit the test of beyond a reasonable doubt and doesn't mean they will be convicted in a court. So, for example, I will continue to hold the opinion that Mairia Cahill was raped by Martin Morris and nothing you and others would say will change that.

I haven't convicted Martin Morris, I haven't kneecapped him, I haven't buried him in an unmarked grave, but I hold the reasoned opinion that he is guilty of rape.

I usually am a firm believer of 'not guilty until proven guilty' but the legal system doesn't really work as intended when you're dealing with the causa nostra. Witnesses are silent or silenced. Families are intimidated. Communities practice omerta, either out of distrust of the government, or fear from organized crime. The only weapon in our arsenal to deal with such a perversion of the social compact is the Special Criminal Court - which is precisely why SF hates it. SF hates Maria Cahill as well (or 'that bitch' as I've heard SF supporters say).

TheCitizen

RandomName2 wrote: »

On paper none of the parties are Euroskeptic.

In practice I4C, PBP and SF are Soft-Euroskeptic.

The populist parties in Europe vary a lot in terms of policy. Generally they are opportunistic in relation to focusing on areas that traditional parties have ignored. SF shares some of these, but doesn't share others, which is really typical among populist parties as they don't all sing off the same hymn sheet.

SF is nationalistic, tapping into a poorer demographic through policies in relation to social protection, with some general saber rattling and generally jingoistic cultural inheritance. Their original cornerstone supporters are now seen as a bit of an embarrassment (sectarian, militant) but can't be entirely dumped. All these things are mirrored in many of the populist parties across Europe. They aren't anti-immigrant, and their support of traditional values don't go so far as to endorse the Church, those are two of the ways that they don't look like a lot of the populist parties on the continent.

What’s this jingoistic cultural inheritance and saber rattling you’re referring to? Very generalised catch all comments with zero substance.

As for populist, a lot of parties are capable of populism. Leo Varadkar for example often comes out with deliberate populist comments to pander to a particular cohort within FG supporters.

FrancieBrady

wicklowstevo wrote: »

aw now i see your mistake ,

your confusing democracy with justice ,

different words mean different thing.

i ll give you an example . the gfa was as a result of democratic vote.

the release of multiple murderers and assorted deranged terrorist criminals was as a result of that.

but that was not justice.

looking for justice for victims of crime and terrorism is a common discussion here

once again ill say that a poster with your allegiances accusing some one else of deflection is irony in the extreme and is lost on few here


do you understand now ?

Claiming you found the guy guilty before a trial has to do with justice now?

It gets better.


BTW...what precisely is being 'deflected from'?

Are we not discussing Dowdall?

FrancieBrady

RandomName2 wrote: »

I usually am a firm believer of 'not guilty until proven guilty' but the legal system doesn't really work as intended when you're dealing with the causa nostra. Witnesses are silent or silenced. Families are intimidated. Communities practice omerta, either out of distrust of the government, or fear from organized crime. The only weapon in our arsenal to deal with such a perversion of the social compact is the Special Criminal Court - which is precisely why SF hates it. SF hates Maria Cahill as well (or 'that bitch' as I've heard SF supporters say).

'I'm not a racist but....' style commentary in all it's glory.

wicklowstevo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Claiming you found the guy guilty before a trial has to do with justice now?

It gets better.


BTW...what precisely is being 'deflected from'?

Are we not discussing Dowdall?

i claimed he was guilty did i ? or did i say he was involved ?

tell you want if he is cleared ill retract how about that ?

come on now i know the party is under a lot of pressure at the min but your usually at least a better quality poster than most of the online army

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

But you would hang him if the penalty was hanging.

Without a fair trial and the vindication of his rights.

That is what it is...you are correct. And democratic it isn't.

Rubbish.

I would not hang him, I am against the death penalty, but I note your indirect support of it.

IF Martin Morris believes I have defamed him, let him sue.

TheCitizen

blanch152 wrote: »

Rubbish.

I would not hang him, I am against the death penalty, but I note your indirect support of it.

IF Martin Morris believes I have defamed him, let him sue.

Never heard of Martin Morris until I read this thread.

It’ll be the site that will be sued if there was any suing would it not?