So Michael D IS running again!

alaimacerc

MrMusician18 wrote: »

But being disadvantaged doesn't mean you get a free pass to litter and act anti social, to harbour criminality within the community or to treat animals poorly.

I'm not aware anyone is arguing for any such "free pass". Did recognition of ethnic minority status come with an immunity badge and a slashhook-duelling permit? If so, I missed that angle.

These are charges that can be laid at many Traveller communities, not just the "small minority" pavee point would have you believe.

Communal blame is a slippery idea at best. Even if it's many, does it excuse lazy stereotyping and slurring of every Traveller? That's what Casey did. That's what you'll see a metastasised version of, if you dip into the rhetorical gutter over in After Hours. That's the very definition of prejudice.

So whose fault is it, that travellers find themselves on the margins? Surely there must be some self responsibility, because if travellers lived quietly and cleanly on the side of the road (even if they were all unemployed), I doubt many would care enough to get incensed by them.

"Living by the side of the road", quietly and cleanly or otherwise, has largely been rendered impossible. As has the "traditional, nice" Traveller lifestyle that poster was pining nostalgically for. Pretty much inevitably, I think it must be said, but you have to face up to the consequences of that.

Getting incensed may indeed be an understandable reaction, but it's counterproductive. Especially when it's getting incensed at them living itinerantly, getting incensed at them living in permanent sites, getting incensed at them becoming settled, and pretty much at any choice they make.

Not a great deal of signs of them surging ahead in banking, law, and the arts, but the precedents make me wonder if people wouldn't just get incensed about that, too.

Eric Cartman

alaimacerc wrote: »

I'm not aware anyone is arguing for any such "free pass". Did recognition of ethnic minority status come with an immunity badge and a slashhook-duelling permit? If so, I missed that angle.
.

No, they seem to have gotten that long ago.

feargale

martingriff wrote: »

So is Liadh Ni Riada take home pay of average industrial wage before or after tax

The crucial point is that whatever salary Sinn Féin representatives have foregone has gone not to the public purse but to the Sinn Féin coffers. Given the song and dance that they have made of this, and their self-congratulation, the clear implication of this is that the interests of Sinn Féin coincide with the national interest. Surprise, surprise! What has changed? Translate that to a time when they govern us and the Constitution may need to be reformed on Soviet lines:

In 1936, for the first time a Soviet constitution specifically mentioned the role of the Communist Party. Article 126 portrayed the Party as a "vanguard of the working people in their struggle to strengthen and develop the socialist system and representing the leading core of all organizations of the working people, both public and state".This provision was used to justify banning all other parties from functioning in the Soviet Union.

Patser

alaimacerc wrote: »

His line is that he divided up his time in advance between "being president" time and "campaigning" time, and have those to the broadcasters (and everyone else). If the broadcasters then scheduled debates in "presidential" time, he stuck with it. And the broadcasters, conversely, have said they can't just be arranging debates entirely around one person's schedule...

I edited my post earlier to show that he was actually at music event in Donegal with supporters after campaigning. It's not exactly Presidential duties, it was a campaign session that could easily been deferred.

Edit: To show link again

https://donegalnews.com/2018/10/mich...s-in-bundoran/

He was also at another supporter event in Leitrim earlier in day

Hotblack Desiato

martingriff wrote: »

Ya did not watch the debate as I would rather watch paint but ya when I heard it this morning I was SF are wishing they picked someone else she seems to not think

I think she's wishing they picked someone else too.

Hotblack Desiato

Patser wrote: »

I edited my post earlier to show that he was actually at music event in Donegal with supporters after campaigning. It's not exactly Presidential duties, it was a campaign session that could easily been deferred.

Why though? How many debates are needed?

If TV stations decided to have 20 debates, should candidates have to attend them all?

I only dipped in and out of tonight's one (had it on mute most of the time) but the format looked lightweight as fluff.

alaimacerc

humberklog wrote: »

It can be a bit more nuanced than that in fairness. There's even a poster over in AH that said "Casey would only appeal to the uneducated".

I wouldn't converse with that post on line but that post (theirs, not yours) makes my protest vote, to me, important.

What's wrong with uneducated people? I wouldn't dismiss anyone's vote because they're uneducated.

And it's that stench of intellectual and status dismissiveness from the Pro Higgins/SF camp I find awful.

Why is Higgins/SF one camp? Two different candidates, by my count. And the other two don't-call-us-dwagons and the mini-Dana was pretty critical of Casey too, to be fair to them.

I didn't see that comment -- only so much AH I can stand, for the good my blood pressure. And I'd neither agree with it not condone it. Firstly, anti-Traveller sentiment goes a looooong way up the socio-economic scale. I've heard it many times in company that would be shocked and aghast of someone made similarly crass comment about gay people, women, "visible" ethnic minorities, etc.

Secondly, while I think education is a wonderful thing, it's pretty sneery to dismiss people that have had less access to it, often through no fault of their own. Indeed, it's one of the keys -- possibly the key -- to intergenerational disadvantage, and how it might be addressed. The Traveller community being a case in point.

alaimacerc

Eric Cartman wrote: »

No, they seem to have gotten that long ago.

The prejudices of some "seem" to be getting harder and harder to parody, these days.

circular flexing

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Why though? How many debates are needed?

If TV stations decided to have 20 debates, should candidates have to attend them all?

I only dipped in and out of tonight's one (had it on mute most of the time) but the format looked lightweight as fluff.

Remember that debates only came a long in 2011 - they are a complete invention of the TV3 generation and basically a way to try and generate controversy where there is none.

Silentcorner

alaimacerc wrote: »

Yeah, I wonder why the media aren't framing MDH's odds having shortened from 1/5, to 1/9, to 1/33, to 1/50 as "a much closer affair".

It's almost as if they're reporting the facts, and not sheer wishful thinking on the part of the over-excited partisans for one ludicrous figure. That only ended up in the race because some of the councils got a little carried away with the spirit of "well, the ones we wanted t nominate are taken, but let's pick someone, for the sake of it!"


Obviously a vast conspiracy by the Evil "Liberal" Media. Or as these things are conducted over several days, and are commissioned some additional time in advance of that, poor outburst planning on Casey's part?


Are they perhaps now the Lamestream Fake News? Or are we trying to keep the Trumpiness slightly more deniable than that?


Irreverence? Subliminal plug for the blasphemy referendum, perhaps?

Reporting facts!!! I love people who have an ingrained trust in media...it reminds me of my youth!

An official poll would shut me up...can you post a link to the latest one?

Patser

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Why though? How many debates are needed?

If TV stations decided to have 20 debates, should candidates have to attend them all?

I only dipped in and out of tonight's one (had it on mute most of the time) but the format looked lightweight as fluff.

There were a grand total of 4 debates scheduled. Not exactly overload. And you can't argue that the debates (especially 2nd one with Pat Kenny - where Casey didn't back down) didn't have a big impact on the campaign in general.

Is it fair that the Incumbent can simply skip out on one of the few debates to go to meet fans, and so not face the level of scrutiny others had to tonight?

Edit: Just to add, look at the impact the final debate had in 2011. Imagine if Sean Gallagher had simply gone to a pub that night, how history might have changed.

An Ciarraioch

So, anything earth-shattering to report from tonight's debate?

circular flexing

Patser wrote: »

There were a grand total of 4 debates scheduled. Not exactly overload. And you can't argue that the debates (especially 2nd one with Pat Kenny - where Casey didn't back down) didn't have a big impact on the campaign in general.

Is it fair that the Incumbent can simply skip out on one of the few debates to go to meet fans, and so not face the level of scrutiny others had to tonight?

If "debates" are going to be a new norm then there should be some kind of commission for them (like they have in the US) where agreement is reached between candidates and broadcasters in terms of scheduling.

Graniteville

martingriff wrote: »

So is Liadh Ni Riada take home pay of average industrial wage before or after tax

Average industrial wage before tax is €47k,

All shinners take 47k AFTER Tax.

I would assume that her husband has kept his tax free allowance which means that to get to her 47k net take home pay, she'd need to be earning about €78k before tax.

Then you have the tens of thousands of unvouched expenses.

alaimacerc

Silentcorner wrote: »

Reporting facts!!! I love people who have an ingrained trust in media...it reminds me of my youth!

You pointed to the odds changing. I pointed out they'd consistently changed... in the exact opposite direction from your claims. Straight from the bookies mouth, no "ingrained trust" required, 100% verification. Media 1, you -1.

What I miss from my youth is that people not just writing complete nonsense, providing no evidence at all for it, and then when evidence to the contrary is provided, exclaiming "vast conspiracy!", as if everyone else were the credulous fools.

An official poll would shut me up...can you post a link to the latest one?

Google it. I already answered your point, pointing out they were scheduled in advance, not to suit the whims of your candidate.

Patser

circular flexing wrote: »

If "debates" are going to be a new norm then there should be some kind of commission for them (like they have in the US) where agreement is reached between candidates and broadcasters in terms of scheduling.

Agreed, that makes sense. Also as David Norris suggested, during the campaign the President steps aside from the role, and does not have ceremonial, presidential duties to attend to.

Again though tonight's schedule from Higgins seems to have been entirely campaign orientated, and I've no doubt if it was a the main RTE debate tonight, he would have made it.

alaimacerc

Patser wrote: »

There were a grand total of 4 debates scheduled. Not exactly overload.

Also a (rather shambolic) radio debate, on which MDH did appear.

McMurphy

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

So, anything earth-shattering to report from tonight's debate?

Higgins feared a roasting from Yates and so never bothered his barney togging out, and was quite rightly called out for it
.

Apart from that, not much.

humberklog

alaimacerc wrote: »

Why is Higgins/SF one camp?

Candidates from from the main parties.

Silentcorner

alaimacerc wrote: »

You pointed to the odds changing. I pointed out they'd consistently changed... in the exact opposite direction from your claims. Straight from the bookies mouth, no "ingrained trust" required, 100% verification. Media 1, you -1.

What I miss from my youth is that people not just writing complete nonsense, providing no evidence at all for it, and then when evidence to the contrary is provided, exclaiming "vast conspiracy!", as if everyone else were the credulous fools.



Google it. I already answered your point, pointing out they were scheduled in advance, not to suit the whims of your candidate.

Impressive self awareness there, I can see what I'm dealing with.

The story of this one sided race, is that the candidate who was trailing everyone in the field, is now probably 2nd, (perhaps in view of sensitivities I should have framed it that way initially) we don't know, not you or I, which is unusual, at this point we would have a poll to help us, in 2011 how many polls did we have in the last week....the most important week in the 6 week campaign...but we don't, do you think that there is no polling at all in the field? In the last week of an election...

Patser

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

So, anything earth-shattering to report from tonight's debate?

Ivan Yates should be President, tore a few of them apart:

Called Higgins a pompous poet and slagged others for being so crap they couldn't take him on.

Caught Casey out on how much is the dole? 5 awkward seconds of silence, followed by an 'I don't know'. All others equally quiet, and equally lost when asked price of milk.

Ni Riada badly embarrassed again about her wages, as they had the figures for her unvouched expenses to add on now.

Gallagher very subdued again, Duffy actually likeable and joining in the banter. Freeman victim of lot of slagging.

Debate was only 45 minutes long (with ad breaks as well) and actually well worth a watch, as quite funny at times.

alaimacerc

Patser wrote: »

Ni Riada badly embarrassed again about her wages, as they had the figures for her unvouched expenses to add on now.

Loved the way she converted it back to per-month, as if over a four grand unvouched sounds any better that way. Confirms she draws the whole amount down, but has to "top it up" from her after-tax salary. That Enniscorthy office must be the most palatial establishment place in the town!

Freeman victim of lot of slagging.

Righteously!

Debate was only 45 minutes long (with ad breaks as well) and actually well worth a watch, as quite funny at times.

It's on for 1h15, what happens at the end? Extended drum solo?

alaimacerc

Silentcorner wrote: »

Impressive self awareness there, I can see what I'm dealing with.

Likewise, I'm sure.

The story of this one sided race, [...]

Is that it's getting more one-sided, on the basis of the bookies odds. You claimed it was getting less, on that exact basis. That make enough sense for you yet?

Silentcorner

alaimacerc wrote: »

Likewise, I'm sure.



Is that it's getting more one-sided, on the basis of the bookies odds. You claimed it was getting less, on that exact basis. That make enough sense for you yet?

Can you please provide proof of that please. Do you have polling that suggests that MDH has increased his lead since the last poll, which had Higgins on 68% ...you are too slick to be just making this up as you go along!

alaimacerc

Silentcorner wrote: »

Can you please provide proof of that please.

Refer back to the bookies odds over time. You know, the thing you specifically made the claim about. Not sure if they archive it on their respective websites, but you'll find people quoting them contemporaneously quoting them here.

Do you have polling that suggests that MDH has increased his lead since the last poll, which had Higgins on 68% ...you are too slick to be just making this up as you go along!

Polling evidence since the last poll. Not sure you quite thought that one through. How many meals have you had since your last meal?

You seem to be confusing "bookies odds", the thing you made the claim about, with "polls", the thing you'd like to talk about now that you've been revealed to be spoofing utterly. Funny, that.

alaimacerc

alaimacerc wrote: »

It's on for 1h15, what happens at the end? Extended drum solo?

Caught up with it now... apparently it's what they self-describe as an "even worse panel after the break".

I do hate to agree with Ian O'Doherty on anything, but "ramshackle" is a pretty apt description.

alaimacerc

humberklog wrote: »

Candidates from from the main parties.

Higgins is a self-nominee, and independent and member of no party since his first election.

FrancieBrady

alaimacerc wrote: »

Caught up with it now... apparently it's what they self-describe as an "even worse panel after the break".

I do hate to agree with Ian O'Doherty on anything, but "ramshackle" is a pretty apt description.

It completely fell apart tbh. They all know the game is up.

Silentcorner

alaimacerc wrote: »

Refer back to the bookies odds over time. You know, the thing you specifically made the claim about. Not sure if they archive it on their respective websites, but you'll find people quoting them contemporaneously quoting them here.


Polling evidence since the last poll. Not sure you quite thought that one through. How many meals have you had since your last meal?

You seem to be confusing "bookies odds", the thing you made the claim about, with "polls", the thing you'd like to talk about now that you've been revealed to be spoofing utterly. Funny, that.

I am not a betting man, so I don't understand the impact a rise or decline in support in a poll would have on bookies odds, a poll indicating a sudden and dramatic rise in support for candidate A would lead to a shortening of their odds I would imagine, would it not....in the absence of polls in the last 10 days of a national election, not you or I can predict what levels of support exist for either candidate.

Also, and bear in mind I am not a betting man, but I would imagine bookies odds would shorten in a race like this the closer we get to polling day, therefore, in the absence of official polls, or in the absence of a tweetgate type incident, Higgins, the clear leader's odds would naturally shorten...again, feel free to yet again accuse me of utter spoof...your kind are like that!

alaimacerc

Silentcorner wrote: »

I am not a betting man, so I don't understand the impact a rise or decline in support in a poll would have on bookies odds, a poll indicating a sudden and dramatic rise in support for candidate A would lead to a shortening of their odds I would imagine, would it not....in the absence of polls in the last 10 days of a national election, not you or I can predict what levels of support exist for either candidate.

You're a bit late pleading lack of knowledge of betting as any sort of excuse, having made a claim expressly about that. Let me remind you of the statement I put you right on:

Silentcorner wrote: »

It has gone from being the most one sided race in Irish political history to being a much closer affair (if the bookies odds are anything to go by), and yet the media are not framing it that way...

If the bookies odds are anything to go by, exactly the reverse is the case. Are we clear on that yet? If you keep yes-but-no-butting and banging on about polls to deflect from that, perhaps not, but I suspect you're the only one you're fooling at this point.

Also, and bear in mind I am not a betting man, but I would imagine bookies odds would shorten in a race like this the closer we get to polling day, therefore, in the absence of official polls, or in the absence of a tweetgate type incident, Higgins, the clear leader's odds would naturally shorten...again, feel free to yet again accuse me of utter spoof...your kind are like that!

He's the clear leader, the odds are shortening, but somehow it's "a much closer affair"? On what basis? Yer man Casey joining the arm-wrestle for a distant second place, and making it even more distant in the process? Even what you "imagine" doesn't even remotely add up, even on its own terms.

And what "kind" is that, exactly? Even your insults seems decidedly schematic at this point. The "kind" that doesn't believe in sketchy conspiracy theories at the drop of a hat? It's a fair cop.