Off Topic Thread 4.0

Buer

LnR ran a terrible campaign. Her wishy washy response on her salary this week ensured she dropped from getting her expenses back (12%) to being a total also ran.

She danced between various stances. The poppy, taking the industrial wage, vaccinations which lost her votes without impressing in any way to make up any losses.

Squidgy Black

I don't really follow things that closely, and I hadn't even realised she was running until I had my ballot card in my hand. Which sort of says it all.

DGRulz

The Casey vote has left me very confused. On one hand he went from polling peanuts to a quarter of the vote with a few through away comments. He hit a nerve with a lot of people and there's a conversation that needs to be had there about bringing the Traveling community more into society and dealing with the odd scouts better. Perhaps look at what different country's have done to include indigenous peoples in their own societies? But on the other hand people are calling this a protest vote? What are they protesting? Higgens has no real connection to Leo and co and despite some of the muck shoveled out during the debates, the office of President has no power over matters like housing.

Leah Ní Riada ran a horrible campaign. She failed to say anything to really dismiss the anti-vaxer thing, was then shown up to be a massive hypocrite with the salery thing and then there was the constant touching Higgens during the last debate. She was also the only candidate besides Higgens they put up posters, so people should have known her face. I saw someone on Reddit point out that weeks ago before the SF candidate was picked a question mark and SF logo was polling at ~13%, she doesn't look likes she's going to get half that. Casey will likely have swallowed a lot of the votes SF would have expected to go to Ní Riada.

Ideally I would have liked to see Higgens get 70% but it's looking like mid-50s and when you consider the turnout that's mid-50s of a 30-ish % turnout. Similarly though, Casey is only getting mid-20s of 30-ish% so it hard to quantify what any of this means on a national level.

CatFromHue

my take on it was that his was a protest vote to the reaction to what he said, not just for what he said.

so many of the people who criticized him were the same people who are very vocal about the housing problem. yet there is a purpose built housing block being left empty for no good reason at all and not a peep out of those people.

irishbucsfan

I have no trouble believing it was a protest vote. People are that daft.

But it is a minor wake up call that blatant and overt racism will work with some of the population, even for a blatantly poor candidate. I'm not really concerned about that leading to any actual power in the hands of people like that, but I am worried that one of the two big parties will skew that way in future.

mfceiling

irishbucsfan wrote: »

but I am worried that one of the two big parties will skew that way in future.

They won't. Neither of them stand for anything. They both care about "the rich, the poor, the working class, the middle class, the sick, the infirm, the young, the elderly, the students, the self employed, the unemployed, farmers, factory workers, the public servants and the private sector".

They're 2 half's of the one arse!!

stephen_n

irishbucsfan wrote: »

I have no trouble believing it was a protest vote. People are that daft.

But it is a minor wake up call that blatant and overt racism will work with some of the population, even for a blatantly poor candidate. I'm not really concerned about that leading to any actual power in the hands of people like that, but I am worried that one of the two big parties will skew that way in future.

I don’t think there is any risk of either FF or FG taking up these policies, as much as I dislike both, they are far too close to the centre for that to happen. However some politicians on the extreme right might lock on to it and stir it up. As we have seen in other countries it will gain traction and cause divisions. Then again, just because it doesn’t have a voice at the moment, doesn’t mean it’s not there and this vote highlights that.

DGRulz

Out of interest, putting aside the traveller comments. What are peoples thoughts on Casey's comments on Ireland becoming a welfare state?

Squidgy Black

DGRulz wrote: »

Out of interest, putting aside the traveller comments. What are peoples thoughts on Casey's comments on Ireland becoming a welfare state?

He's not far off the mark. There's a section of society who believe, or more so demands, that the government fulfill their every need, despite not actually contributing anything themselves.

irishbucsfan

DGRulz wrote: »

Out of interest, putting aside the traveller comments. What are peoples thoughts on Casey's comments on Ireland becoming a welfare state?

It's vapid and its just the same nonsense that gets wheeled out everywhere else. But the only reason he said it of course is because he needed to offer people the opportunity to triangulate, so that they can launder their distrust of minorities through vague economic excuses.

irishbucsfan

Squidgy Black wrote: »

He's not far off the mark. There's a section of society who believe, or more so demands, that the government fulfill their every need, despite not actually contributing anything themselves.

Oh really? What section of society is that, how big is that section?

stephen_n

Squidgy Black wrote: »

He's not far off the mark. There's a section of society who believe, or more so demands, that the government fulfill their every need, despite not actually contributing anything themselves.

Is there really? Where do you think those people spend the money they get? Do they not contribute to the domestic economy? Do they not pay indirect taxes?

I would say the only ones who don’t contribute are those rich enough to avoid tax and move there money abroad.

Squidgy Black

Small, listen to the Margaret Cash interview with Niall Boylan.

thomond2006

stephen_n wrote: »

Is there really? Where do you think those people spend the money they get? Do they not contribute to the domestic economy? Do they not pay indirect taxes?

I would say the only ones who don’t contribute are those rich enough to avoid tax and move there money abroad.

You know we can be opposed to both right? This isn't binary and there's a moral issue with both.

If you are part of the labour force you should be doing your damnest to get a job. Tax avoidance by anyone should be stopped.

Squidgy Black

stephen_n wrote: »

Is there really? Where do you think those people spend the money they get? Do they not contribute to the domestic economy? Do they not pay indirect taxes?

I would say the only ones who don’t contribute are those rich enough to avoid tax and move there money abroad.

Counter argument to that would be, surely the rich are contributing to the domestic economy then by providing jobs through their companies and paying for services related to their company?

They're both bad situations, but you can't say "oh you can't talk about one fault of society because there's another social class who has similar faults".

I've family members who have never worked a day in their life because they'll just work the system and know they'll get the dole for doing nothing. Similar situation with a lot of lads I went to school with, instead of doing what a few of us did and get trades or work their way into college, said fúck it I'll just go on the dole.

CatFromHue

stephen_n wrote: »

Is there really? Where do you think those people spend the money they get? Do they not contribute to the domestic economy? Do they not pay indirect taxes?

I would say the only ones who don’t contribute are those rich enough to avoid tax and move there money abroad.

It's very easy to apply your first line to the people in your second line, I mean do the "rich" not pay indirect taxes? do they not contribute to the domestic economy?

The Pheasant2

DGRulz wrote: »

Perhaps look at what different country's have done to include indigenous peoples in their own societies?

I think some people were agreeing with Casey on the basis that travellers are not necessarily the indigenous population of Ireland in the way the Maori were in New Zealand or the Native Americans in the US; and therefore may not be seen to be deserving of special status.

irishbucsfan

I mean unemployment is extremely low. Labor market participation is as high as it’s been since the crash... where is the evidence of this supposed nation of scroungers?

It’s pure manipulation. Divide and conquer. And it’s the sort of thing I definitely think we’ll see start to appear in mainstream politics from major parties.

Podge_irl

There is almost definitely a "scrounger" element to Irish society - because there is one everywhere. But it's tiny and not really worth worrying about, no matter how irritating individual cases may be. Nationally speaking it just isn't that important and is discussed out of all proportion to the reality (not unique to Ireland).

Anyway, if people do indeed feel this strongly about it they are choosing the worst election to vote based on it.

stephen_n

thomond2006 wrote: »

You know we can be opposed to both right? This isn't binary and there's a moral issue with both.

If you are part of the labour force you should be doing your damnest to get a job. Tax avoidance by anyone should be stopped.

That’s a rather naive view about working and what it means. Working on zero hour contracts? Working for below the living wage, when you know you’re damaging your family by doing so? Working full time into homelessness and being unable to access supports and benefits because you choose to work. We live in a capitalist society that exploits the poor, it’s a bit rich to turn around and blame them for trying to make the best they can of that. This idea of social welfare parasites is just a lie.

stephen_n

Squidgy Black wrote: »

Counter argument to that would be, surely the rich are contributing to the domestic economy then by providing jobs through their companies and paying for services related to their company?

They're both bad situations, but you can't say "oh you can't talk about one fault of society because there's another social class who has similar faults".

I've family members who have never worked a day in their life because they'll just work the system and know they'll get the dole for doing nothing. Similar situation with a lot of lads I went to school with, instead of doing what a few of us did and get trades or work their way into college, said fúck it I'll just go on the dole.

Should the situation exist that people are better of on social welfare than working? It’s that notion that it’s lazieness rather than self preservation. You mention Margaret Cash, that’s an interesting one, how many companies do you know that will hire travelers? Is it a realistic choice for them to work. Now the issue I have in that situation is that she has chosen to have 7 children. When most working families simply couldn’t afford to do that. That is completely wrong in my view, particularly for the children.

There will always be outliers at the top and bottom who feed off society. That doesn’t not add up to a social welfare culture though. That’s the narrative off extremism.

thomond2006

stephen_n wrote: »

That’s a rather naive view about working and what it means. Working on zero hour contracts? Working for below the living wage, when you know you’re damaging your family by doing so? Working full time into homelessness and being unable to access supports and benefits because you choose to work. We live in a capitalist society that exploits the poor, it’s a bit rich to turn around and blame them for trying to make the best they can of that. This idea of social welfare parasites is just a lie.

I'm not blaming anyone for doing anything that is in their own best interests. We shouldn't be living in a society where not working leaves you better off. That is of course perverse.

As for the capitalist society, the alternative is what exactly?

stephen_n

thomond2006 wrote: »

.

As for the capitalist society, the alternative is what exactly?

So we just stick with the **** we know? The Scandinavian form of socialism, where you link the wages at the top, to wages at the bottom.

thomond2006

stephen_n wrote: »

So we just stick with the **** we know? The Scandinavian form of socialism, where you link the wages at the top, to wages at the bottom.

We'll discuss in person. Have a good one!

awec

Politics is against the charter, for the 100th time.

Stheno

awec wrote: »

Politics is against the charter, for the 100th time.

Surely you mean the millionth?

awec

awec wrote: »

Politics is against the charter, for the 100th time.

Not that I'm disputing this at all but would a politics thread be a possibility?

I've no desire to go to AH but the conversations here can be interesting enough and it would save moderator time

CatFromHue

this the rugby forum, sure we're expected to have those type of conversations :pac:

mfceiling

https://www.instagram.com/p/BpbgyKcnWx5/?utm_source=ig_share_sheet&igshid=s5o93wuj0d3a

^^I hope the above link works. Especially for you thomond!!

stephen_n

Is there another denial of service attack going on today or is it just the data Centre again?