So...Ok then...How do we talk about it? (Irish Presidential Election Result)

Loafing Oaf

https://www.thephoenix.ie/article/mary-lous-election-blues/

Interesting Phoenix article about smouldering anger within SF grassroots over the presidential fiasco. Apparently a breast-beating apology will be demanded from the leadership.

Seemingly John Finucane had been the chosen one and it was only when he decided not to run that they went scrabbling around for a candidate and came up with LNR.

Tell me how

Tell me how wrote: »

Brendan O'Connor Cutting edge show Wednesday night at 22:15 is discussing if votes for Peter Casey were a vote against the travelling community.
RTE 1

Only a portion of this show related to this topic. It was a start. Niamh Horan admitted she'd rather not have travellers living beside her. Ciara Kelly said we shouldn't even be discussing Peter Casey and his comments (which Brendan O'Connor admonished her for saying) and the traveller representative, Martin Beans Ward said that it should be possible to discuss things. They didn't delve in to the validity or otherwise of the comments however.

Eric Cartman

Tell me how wrote: »

Only a portion of this show related to this topic. It was a start. Niamh Horan admitted she'd rather not have travellers living beside her. Ciara Kelly said we shouldn't even be discussing Peter Casey and his comments (which Brendan O'Connor admonished her for saying) and the traveller representative, Martin Beans Ward said that it should be possible to discuss things. They didn't delve in to the validity or otherwise of the comments however.

yeah, there was room for a meaningful chat but Ciara just turned the whole thing into almost an hour of her blaming men for things.

Tell me how

Eric Cartman wrote: »

yeah, there was room for a meaningful chat but Ciara just turned the whole thing into almost an hour of her blaming men for things.

I know you are not a fan. I don't think it was as bad as that. I don't agree with everything she says but often find she gets admonished for having an opinion and expressing it like that isn't why she is there (like all other guests).

Apparently Casey is on the Late late tomorrow night.
I suspect Ryan will ask him about his experience of the campaign without asking him to back up his comments or having someone on to challenge them.

3DataModem

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

I wonder was this move directly copied from the Trump playbook

Or as many old-timers call it, the Reagan playbook.

Tell me how

John Connors on latest Eamon Dunphy 'The Stand podcast.

He'll be on it on his own so won't be a head to head but Eamon knows the questions people are interested in so it will be interesting to see how he words his questions.

I enjoy the podcast but guests are definitely treated as such so I wouldn't expect anything too revealing.

mcmoustache

I was reading an article in the bbc today about a traveller gang operating in in the east of England and it raised some questions.

Here's the guts of the article and you'll notice that it rings a bell.

An extended-family gang carried out more than 250 burglaries during an 11-month crime spree in the east of England, police said.

The 12 men stole jewellery, cash, cars and guns worth a total of £2m across five counties in 2017.

The extent of the enterprise can now be reported - after three of them were convicted at Norwich Crown Court.

The burglary rate in Norfolk halved when the gang, aged 20 to 55, was arrested in December, police said.

Det Insp Craig Harrison of Cambridgeshire Police said the men, who are largely from the traveller community, considered crime "just a way of life".

So far, this is all familiar territory so I continue reading, hoping that I don't see phrases like "Irish gang" as I've seen in some australian reports. In trying to guess whether it'll be a family called Connors, Ward or McDonagh, I got a bit of a surprise when I saw the names. Here's a selection.

Charlie Albert Webb, 20, from Newton Flotman, Norfolk
John Eli Loveridge, 42, of Greenways, Carleton Rode, Norfolk
John Stanley Loveridge, 23, of Greenways, Carleton Rode, Norfolk
Joseph Holmes, 21, of Schole Road, Willingham, Cambridgeshire
Danny Stone-Parker, 28, of Braintree Road, Great Dunmow, Essex

I didn't see any Irish names in there at all. These are clearly of English heritage.

So, what's happening here? Are there English people in the process of becoming travellers? Has England always had their own travellers with a similar culture to ours? Are they connected? Are they a separate ethnicity?

I have loads of questions about this lot and I'll need to look into it but I honestly wasn't aware that the English had their own indigenous traveller population.

James Brown

Tell me how wrote: »

John Connors on latest Eamon Dunphy 'The Stand podcast.

He'll be on it on his own so won't be a head to head but Eamon knows the questions people are interested in so it will be interesting to see how he words his questions.

I enjoy the podcast but guests are definitely treated as such so I wouldn't expect anything too revealing.

Maybe how he had trouble finding an agent and the like.

Tell me how

Peter Casey on Late late tonight.

Suspect it will not advance the discussion much as it will be him on his own saying what he has already said.

James Brown

Tell me how wrote: »

Peter Casey on Late late tonight.

Suspect it will not advance the discussion much as it will be him on his own saying what he has already said.

Tubbs will ask him was he only acting the maggot and then Jason Byrne or Louis Walsh will be trotted out.

Tell me how

Tell me how wrote: »

Peter Casey on Late late tonight.

Suspect it will not advance the discussion much as it will be him on his own saying what he has already said.

Well, that was.........interesting.

Peter seems as overall clueless as he did for most of the presidential campaign and yet he probably feels better about tonight's show than some of his critics do.

The travellers in the audience failed to land a blow until the man at the end asked Peter would he go in to Pavee point and he said he would. That will be worth watching if it goes ahead.

I have a strong sense that Peter could lose interest in this and disappear again but if he retains the interest he says he has, he (and whoever he has running with him) could hold the attention for at least the next general election campaign.

Expect it will be easy to poke holes in his suggestions of increasing the pension, not cutting social carers, providing free 3rd level education and converting the Irish air force to a flying medics program. Expect Ivan Yates will back him on that last one if nothing else. :pac:

Any argument against him will be met by his vocal supporters (online anyway) as being another example of the establishment trying to retain control.

An Ciarraioch

Yes, that proved the more useful section of the interview, as if anything it looked like he was going to increase welfare, having refused to name a portion of that department where he would make cuts, and the idea of government-funded housing loans would put him to the left of SF! Where he really drifted into incoherence was his plan to stand for the Dáil - he's going to run in four constituencies, with proxies standing down for him if elected?

Tell me how

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Yes, that proved the more useful section of the interview, as if anything it looked like he was going to increase welfare, having refused to name a portion of that department where he would make cuts, and the idea of government-funded housing loans would put him to the left of SF! Where he really drifted into incoherence was his plan to stand for the Dáil - he's going to run in four constituencies, with proxies standing down for him if elected?

I think that was down to miscommunication (his fault) he was trying to say he'll strongly support candidates, likely in locations which nominated him for presidential run, he'll canvass those areas and ask people to vote for the candidate he supports.

This would be effectively forming a party but he'd be better off staying as an independent and calling them some form of alliance than declare themselves a party.

The whole thing of the name on the ballot paper wasn't as dramatic as he made it sound, like he's going to whip a sheet off someone and reveal a candidate at the last minute.

Sam Russell

I think Peter Casey is a total fantasist who has no clue about politics, and in particular politics in Ireland. He says he is 61 years old, and was brought up in Derry, lived 20 years or so in Australia, and 20 years or so in USA. He stills pays his taxes in the USA, yet he ran for President here.

So how long has he been exposed to life in Ireland? How much time has he devoted to following the day to day politics in Ireland? He has exposed a deep ignorance of how politics works here, and knows little about the constitution, even trying to say Leo could not campaign against him by name, asking people not to vote for him. Where does that idea come from? He even had some American style attack ads against MDH.

He is a fruitcake, and like eaten bread - soon forgotten. Remember the PDs, and Renua - few do.

Wheeliebin30

Sam Russell wrote: »

I think Peter Casey is a total fantasist who has no clue about politics, and in particular politics in Ireland. He says he is 61 years old, and was brought up in Derry, lived 20 years or so in Australia, and 20 years or so in USA. He stills pays his taxes in the USA, yet he ran for President here.

So how long has he been exposed to life in Ireland? How much time has he devoted to following the day to day politics in Ireland? He has exposed a deep ignorance of how politics works here, and knows little about the constitution, even trying to say Leo could not campaign against him by name, asking people not to vote for him. Where does that idea come from? He even had some American style attack ads against MDH.

He is a fruitcake, and like eaten bread - soon forgotten. Remember the PDs, and Renua - few do.

Another one who has misse the point.

It’s not about Casey’s a pity to be a politician it’s about him finally having the balls to say something no politician or media outlet will say.

It was a vote to show people won’t be told what to think anymore and be afraid to express that view without been called racist,

He’ll never make a politician because he is a bit mad in fairness but that’s not the message of all this.

Wheeliebin30

Sam Russell wrote: »

I think Peter Casey is a total fantasist who has no clue about politics, and in particular politics in Ireland. He says he is 61 years old, and was brought up in Derry, lived 20 years or so in Australia, and 20 years or so in USA. He stills pays his taxes in the USA, yet he ran for President here.

So how long has he been exposed to life in Ireland? How much time has he devoted to following the day to day politics in Ireland? He has exposed a deep ignorance of how politics works here, and knows little about the constitution, even trying to say Leo could not campaign against him by name, asking people not to vote for him. Where does that idea come from? He even had some American style attack ads against MDH.

He is a fruitcake, and like eaten bread - soon forgotten. Remember the PDs, and Renua - few do.

Another one who has misses the point.

It’s not about Casey’s abolity to be a politician it’s about him finally having the balls to say something no politician or media outlet will say.

It was a vote to show people won’t be told what to think anymore and be afraid to express that view without been called racist.

He’ll never make a politician because he is a bit mad in fairness but that’s not the message of all this.

Robert2012

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Another one who has misses the point.

It’s not about Casey’s abolity to be a politician it’s about him finally having the balls to say something no politician or media outlet will say.

It was a vote to show people won’t be told what to think anymore and be afraid to express that view without been called racist.

He’ll never make a politician because he is a bit mad in fairness but that’s not the message of all this.

This..

Well put..

Sam Russell

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Another one who has misses the point.

It’s not about Casey’s ability to be a politician it’s about him finally having the balls to say something no politician or media outlet will say.

It was a vote to show people won’t be told what to think anymore and be afraid to express that view without been called racist.

He’ll never make a politician because he is a bit mad in fairness but that’s not the message of all this.

You are saying it is not about Casey - agreed. He has shown he is not any kind of credible politician, and has no knowledge of Irish politics.

The fact he chose a disadvantaged group within Irish society to rant against is shameful. The group he chose have many problems, and they need help to move away from those problems - he did nothing to help them do so, and he did nothing to help the rest of society to move away from continuing to disadvantage that same group. He could have picked on the unemployed, immigrants, people of a non-Irish race, drug addicts, rough sleepers, petty criminals, drunk drivers, the disabled, or any other identifiable group. Had he done so, the outrage would have been greater. He shows no courage by picking on the weak and disadvantaged.

He has advanced nothing of value for Irish society and its problems by selecting the group he chose to denigrate.

The quicker he returns to obscurity the better.

tabby aspreme

The best way to solve most problems is to have an open discussion , until Peter Casey spoke about travellers, it was a taboo subject to criticize travellers, to the extent that John Conners said, all Gardai are scumbags, and was not questioned on it. Now a discussion on travellers has started but the media and mainstream politicians are doing their best to stop it, which will solve nothing.
I wonder is it that the politicians and media have allowed the traveller issue to become such a mess that they do not want the public to know how bad it is.

FrancieBrady

tabby aspreme wrote: »

The best way to solve most problems is to have an open discussion , until Peter Casey spoke about travellers, it was a taboo subject to criticize travellers, to the extent that John Conners said, all Gardai are scumbags, and was not questioned on it. Now a discussion on travellers has started but the media and mainstream politicians are doing their best to stop it, which will solve nothing.
I wonder is it that the politicians and media have allowed the traveller issue to become such a mess that they do not want the public to know how bad it is.

Mythmaking again about this issue.
A quick google will show you a FF councillor in Casey's potential TD stomping ground making the same type of remarks very publicly.

https://www.thejournal.ie/fianna-fail-councillor-sean-mceniff-traveller-comments-758655-Jan2013/

tabby aspreme

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Mythmaking again about this issue.
A quick google will show you a FF councillor in Casey's potential TD stomping ground making the same type of remarks very publicly.

https://www.thejournal.ie/fianna-fail-councillor-sean-mceniff-traveller-comments-758655-Jan2013/

I don't see anything in that article where Mceniff said he wanted equality for all Irish people including travellers, like Peter Casey did.

FrancieBrady

tabby aspreme wrote: »

I don't see anything in that article where Mceniff said he wanted equality for all Irish people including travellers, like Peter Casey did.

How many times does that myth have to be dispelled. Irish people are ALL equal under the law.
Many sections of Irish society have more entitlements but that does not make them any more or less equal. Unless you are going to make the ridiculous point that the disabled person next door is more equal than you, or the single mother etc etc. Casey was talking nonsense on that issue.
His further comments on travellers are similar to McEniffs outburst.

26000 Elephants

Sam Russell wrote: »

He has shown he is not any kind of credible politician,

Almost 1 in 4 voters supported him. I'd say he has a better handle on this politics thing than you do.

The fact he chose a disadvantaged group within Irish society to rant against is shameful.

I think you have ranted more in that single post than Casey did in the entire campaign.

Again: Casey didn't "attack" anyone - that is your own deliberate mis-characterisation of his comment.
He made a fair point about the people refusing the houses in Tipperary. You may feel differently about it, and that is fine: debate the point honestly.

The quicker he returns to obscurity the better.

I'd have my doubts about that.

Eric Cartman

Sam Russell wrote: »

You are saying it is not about Casey - agreed. He has shown he is not any kind of credible politician, and has no knowledge of Irish politics.

The fact he chose a disadvantaged group within Irish society to rant against is shameful. The group he chose have many problems, and they need help to move away from those problems - he did nothing to help them do so, and he did nothing to help the rest of society to move away from continuing to disadvantage that same group. He could have picked on the unemployed, immigrants, people of a non-Irish race, drug addicts, rough sleepers, petty criminals, drunk drivers, the disabled, or any other identifiable group. Had he done so, the outrage would have been greater. He shows no courage by picking on the weak and disadvantaged.

He has advanced nothing of value for Irish society and its problems by selecting the group he chose to denigrate.

The quicker he returns to obscurity the better.

you say it like he spun a wheel and picked which ever one the arrow stops on,

he 'picked on' the travellers because there was a story in the news about them wanting a half acre for free in addition to the 1.7 million quid housing development they were being given for free.

The only disadvantage the travellers have is the ones they so rigorously enforce on their own men women and especially children through trying to preserve 'their culture' which is completely incompatible with a modern civil society.

Peter Casey just decried the double standard by which they live with additional rights and benefits to most , with none of the responsibilities expected of any other citizen of this country.

Tell me how

26000 Elephants wrote: »

Almost 1 in 4 voters supported him. I'd say he has a better handle on this politics thing than you do.

I think you have ranted more in that single post than Casey did in the entire campaign.

Again: Casey didn't "attack" anyone - that is your own deliberate mis-characterisation of his comment.
He made a fair point about the people refusing the houses in Tipperary. You may feel differently about it, and that is fine: debate the point honestly.

I'd have my doubts about that.

Did you watch the Late late on Friday night? What did you think of it?

Ryan Tubridy was out of place as a serious interviewer for such a topic, no question about that. And the audience representatives actually did Casey a favour if you ask me.

But, Peter didn't seem to have a straight thinking (even if you disagree with it) line of thought on actual policy matters.
A better interviewer would have let him shoot himself in the foot on the conversation of reducing the perception that Ireland is a welfare nation but Ryan did him a favour by continually shooting in with questions without probing what had just been said.

I understand (I think) peoples motivations in supporting him (see post #1) but I think if it is going to continue as a shouting match between extremes on both sides then it will be exhausting and pointless.

Whoever opens the post in RTE is going to be busy tomorrow morning with a record number of complaints divided equally between those blaming them for "attacking him" on Friday night and those saying that they are giving a hate merchant a platform.

Peter Casey has a grain of truth in his position. But, so too does my auld fella when he says people should pay for their crimes with a direct debit or deduction at source from their income until the debt is paid off and not be let off with an €100 fine after doing damage costing many times that to replace for example. But even so, I wouldn't be putting him on a ballot paper.

Seth Brundle

Tell me how wrote: »

Ryan Tubridy was out of place as a serious interviewer for such a topic, no question about that.

Ryan Tubridy is not a serious interviewer. Ryan Tubridy is in fact a completely crap interviewer!

ThunbergsAreGo

Tell me how wrote: »

Did you watch the Late late on Friday night? What did you think of it?

Ryan Tubridy was out of place as a serious interviewer for such a topic, no question about that. And the audience representatives actually did Casey a favour if you ask me.

But, Peter didn't seem to have a straight thinking (even if you disagree with it) line of thought on actual policy matters.
A better interviewer would have let him shoot himself in the foot on the conversation of reducing the perception that Ireland is a welfare nation but Ryan did him a favour by continually shooting in with questions without probing what had just been said.

I understand (I think) peoples motivations in supporting him (see post #1) but I think if it is going to continue as a shouting match between extremes on both sides then it will be exhausting and pointless.

Whoever opens the post in RTE is going to be busy tomorrow morning with a record number of complaints divided equally between those blaming them for "attacking him" on Friday night and those saying that they are giving a hate merchant a platform.

Peter Casey has a grain of truth in his position. But, so too does my auld fella when he says people should pay for their crimes with a direct debit or deduction at source from their income until the debt is paid off and not be let off with an €100 fine after doing damage costing many times that to replace for example. But even so, I wouldn't be putting him on a ballot paper.

Based on that I would probably vote for your oul fella :P:P

mrbrianj

Will Peter Casey ever finish a sentence?

Maybe when he does and the traveller thing moves on, he will get to FULLY explain his real ideas.

I get that he says that we are a welfare state and the there is a coping class paying for everything. I dont get it though when he wants to increase pensions, carers allowance, provide free 3rd level education, leave the EU and pay Nato 2% of our GDP - the only thing I have heard him purpose to fund this is selling the Air Corps fixed wing planes and replacing them with a rescue helicopter fleet.

Saying he wants to take over FF, calling Leo names and stating the obvious about travelers is just to deflect from the lack of..well, the lack of everything.

Tell me how

mrbrianj wrote:

Saying he wants to take over FF, calling Leo names and stating the obvious about travelers is just to deflect from the lack of..well, the lack of everything.

Yeah. The parallels with him who must not be named are astonishing.

James Brown

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Another one who has misse the point.

It’s not about Casey’s a pity to be a politician it’s about him finally having the balls to say something no politician or media outlet will say.

It was a vote to show people won’t be told what to think anymore and be afraid to express that view without been called racist,

He’ll never make a politician because he is a bit mad in fairness but that’s not the message of all this.

What, about 23.3% of the people who bothered to vote, (about 43.9 % of the electorate) voted for him? Hardly the unspoken masses finally having a say. More like a few people who believe Travelers is an issue of national importance got a moment in the sun.
I think he's got a lot more coverage than he was due, and only because of the sensationalist shock value of his ignorance coupled with that of his character.

Zubeneschamali

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I think he's got a lot more coverage than he was due, and only because of the sensationalist shock value of his ignorance

Absolutely. The Anyone_But_Michael_D crew were looking for someone to back. The Perennial Protest Voters were looking for someone to back. It was all a bit scattered, but then Casey made his remarks, the Establishment condemned him, and both groups had their champion.

But it means nothing in terms of national policy or a new direction for politics, we do not need to talk about it at all.

26000 Elephants

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Absolutely. The Anyone_But_Michael_D crew were looking for someone to back. The Perennial Protest Voters were looking for someone to back. It was all a bit scattered, but then Casey made his remarks, the Establishment condemned him, and both groups had their champion.

But it means nothing in terms of national policy or a new direction for politics, we do not need to talk about it at all.

• Anyone_But_Michael_D crew
• The Perennial Protest Voters
• the Establishment

Are you forgetting anyone?

• Dublin meedja
• Rural gombeens
• Shinners

I'm sure there are a few other imaginary bogeymen you could conjure up.

But please, continue to hand wave away 23.3% of the electorate and see where that will get you.

FrancieBrady

26000 Elephants wrote: »

• Anyone_But_Michael_D crew
• The Perennial Protest Voters
• the Establishment

Are you forgetting anyone?

• Dublin meedja
• Rural gombeens
• Shinners

I'm sure there are a few other imaginary bogeymen you could conjure up.

But please, continue to hand wave away 23.3% of the electorate and see where that will get you.

It's not 23% of the 'electorate', it is 23% of 46% of the electorate actually.

Hugely hugely different figures.

mrbrianj

The next "big" poll will be a general election. We will get people like Peter Casey shouting about travellers, welfare state and so on, but rest assured that the blood and guts of a general election battle will cut through the empty rhetoric BS. The gloves will come off and it wont be like the circus of the presidential election.

People may like a "straight" talkers for presidential elections, but GEs are party politics, parish pumps and fixed pot holes - and what money goes in your pockets.

James Brown

mrbrianj wrote: »

The next "big" poll will be a general election. We will get people like Peter Casey shouting about travellers, welfare state and so on, but rest assured that the blood and guts of a general election battle will cut through the empty rhetoric BS. The gloves will come off and it wont be like the circus of the presidential election.

People may like a "straight" talkers for presidential elections, but GEs are party politics, parish pumps and fixed pot holes - and what money goes in your pockets.

I don't believe the idea of Presidential candidates being anything more than an ambassador has come up before. Straight talking never came into it IMO.
Casey was merely looking for attention. We'll have politicians doing the very same. I'm looking forward to Fine Gael trying to keep a straight face while slagging off their partners in policy Fianna Fail.

mrbrianj

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I don't believe the idea of Presidential candidates being anything more than an ambassador has come up before. Straight talking never came into it IMO.
Casey was merely looking for attention. We'll have politicians doing the very same. I'm looking forward to Fine Gael trying to keep a straight face while slagging off their partners in policy Fianna Fail.

That's the biggest circle for both FF and FG to square! Both are now sharing the same ground, so it its hard to kick down there others principles leaving only track record - and nobody has a good track record. But they'll be like dogs on everybody else's grand plans.

Loafing Oaf

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I'm looking forward to Fine Gael trying to keep a straight face while slagging off their partners in policy Fianna Fail.

I don't think FG will need to go too hard on this as I'd imagine they'll go into the election openly accepting their willingness to cut another deal with FF if circumstances demand.

FF on the other hand will be desperately trying to keep voters' minds off the prospect of another deal with FG. But the problem with that approach is it raises the possibility of an FF-SF coalition as, realistically, what other options will FF have?

James Brown

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

I don't think FG will need to go too hard on this as I'd imagine they'll go into the election openly accepting their willingness to cut another deal with FF if circumstances demand.

FF on the other hand will be desperately trying to keep voters' minds off the prospect of another deal with FG. But the problem with that approach is it raises the possibility of an FF-SF coalition as, realistically, what other options will FF have?

They'll certainly need play the game of being in competition, if only a family rivalry. Otherwise they won't know who's in the driving seat. I doubt either will be raising Travelers as an issue.

26000 Elephants

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It's not 23% of the 'electorate', it is 23% of 46% of the electorate actually.

Hugely hugely different figures.

Believe that all you want, if it makes you feel happier.
In reality, that figure will safely extrapolate to any higher turnout you care to imagine.

The notion that the people who could not ( or would not) vote would vote substantially different from those who do is flawed. Anyway, at any level, the views of those who actually vote are what matter.

Tell me how

26000 Elephants wrote: »

Believe that all you want, if it makes you feel happier.
In reality, that figure will safely extrapolate to any higher turnout you care to imagine.

The notion that the people who could not ( or would not) vote would vote substantially different from those who do is flawed. Anyway, at any level, the views of those who actually vote are what matter.

Can't see it. He hasn't a clue about policy/strategy.

James Brown

26000 Elephants wrote: »

Believe that all you want, if it makes you feel happier.
In reality, that figure will safely extrapolate to any higher turnout you care to imagine.

The notion that the people who could not ( or would not) vote would vote substantially different from those who do is flawed. Anyway, at any level, the views of those who actually vote are what matter.

You don't know that. I would suggest anyone who felt strongly, as we're led to believe those voters did, would have voted. So it's as likely if there were more of a turn out, that percentage could drop.

26000 Elephants

Matt Barrett wrote: »

You don't know that. I would suggest anyone who felt strongly, as we're led to believe those voters did, would have voted. So it's as likely if there were more of a turn out, that percentage could drop.

Either do you.

But you are being extremely naive/clutching at straws to believe that a higher turnout would have any detrimental impact on the outcome for Casey.

As a free insight for you, I voted Casey. Not for any endorsement of his political views ( he doesn't seem to have any coherant ones) or his sparkling personality, but for his decision to stand by his remarks in the face of an indignant onslaught by sections of the media.

The last thing this country needs is an "alt-right" like movement which will ultimately lead to our own version of Trump in power. If you support the vilification of someone for simply expressing an honestly held view, then that is what is in store.

Tell me how

26000 Elephants wrote: »

I voted Casey. Not for any endorsement of his political views ( he doesn't seem to have any coherant ones) or his sparkling personality, but for his decision to stand by his remarks in the face of an indignant onslaught by sections of the media.

How many of those that voted for him do you think did so because he stood up to people telling him to retract his remarks or because they felt that travellers were being treated favourably and that that was unfair.

I would suggest that it was by some distance a majority of those with the latter motivation.

Also voted for someone to help them towards a role for a reason other than you thinking they would be good in the role is counter intuitive towards helping form a positive government.

FrancieBrady

26000 Elephants wrote: »

Either do you.

But you are being extremely naive/clutching at straws to believe that a higher turnout would have any detrimental impact on the outcome for Casey.

As a free insight for you, I voted Casey. Not for any endorsement of his political views ( he doesn't seem to have any coherant ones) or his sparkling personality, but for his decision to stand by his remarks in the face of an indignant onslaught by sections of the media.

The last thing this country needs is an "alt-right" like movement which will ultimately lead to our own version of Trump in power. If you support the vilification of someone for simply expressing an honestly held view, then that is what is in store.

He didn't stand by them, he took a weekend off and then said he didn't want to be elected in the basis of his traveller remarks.

'Not coherent'?? Not even making sense, is our Peter.

26000 Elephants

Tell me how wrote: »

How many of those that voted for him do you think did so because he stood up to people telling him to retract his remarks or because they felt that travellers were being treated favourably and that that was unfair.

I would suggest that it was by some distance a majority of those with the latter motivation.

Also voted for someone to help them towards a role for a reason other than you thinking they would be good in the role is counter intuitive towards helping form a positive government.

I cant speak for the motivations of others, but I'm sure it was a mixture of the two. It was disingenuous of some media commentators ( Gene Kerrigan is a prime example) to characterise them all as "racists" or "Nazis".

On your last point, it was a Presidential election, not a general election. But all politics is local, and the same dynamic is evidenced by the support for the likes of Lowry and the Healy-Raes.

Tell me how

26000 Elephants wrote: »

I cant speak for the motivations of others, but I'm sure it was a mixture of the two. It was disingenuous of some media commentators ( Gene Kerrigan is a prime example) to characterise them all as "racists" or "Nazis".

On your last point, it was a Presidential election, not a general election. But all politics is local, and the same dynamic is evidenced by the support for the likes of Lowry and the Healy-Raes.

But people who support the Healy-Raes are voting for someone to represent their area as well as possible. In very simple terms could it not be argued that that is what every one of the members of Dail Eireann are asked to do as their primary focus. The ministers are then asked to take on the role of responsibility for specific areas with a national focus. Michael Healy-Rae discussed this and said, it's parish pump politics when it is him representing his constituents in Kerry but when Tony Gregory was doing it for the people of inner city Dublin he was praised from all corners for it.

Even though it was a Presidential election, I feel it is misleading to give a vote to someone as a protest vote if you do not feel they are the best candidate available for a role. It muddies the water as to the true sentiment of the electorate and gives credence to their position when it might not be warranted.

26000 Elephants

FrancieBrady wrote: »

He didn't stand by them, he took a weekend off and then said he didn't want to be elected in the basis of his traveller remarks.

'Not coherent'?? Not even making sense, is our Peter.

Ok then, post a link to where he retracted his statements. Taking a weekend off and making that statement does not constitute a retraction.

Anyway, you are missing his greatest achievement: showing how fickle the Shinner vote is in reality. It doesnt take much to shift it, does it?

FrancieBrady

26000 Elephants wrote: »

Ok then, post a link to where he retracted his statements. Taking a weekend off and making that statement does not constitute a retraction.

I didn't say retracted his statement, he didn't stand by it. He didn't want to be elected on the basis of it. Which kinda suggests he wouldn't do anything about it.

Anyway, you are missing his greatest achievement: showing how fickle the Shinner vote is in reality. It doesnt take much to shift it, does it?

Not that I voted for SF, but they were polling 6-7% when Peter was polling 1-2%
and SF finished in the same 6-7% when Peter was on 23 %
Higgins fell from 70% to 56% while Gallagher fell from 14% to 6%.

As they say in America...do the maths.

26000 Elephants

Tell me how wrote: »

But people who support the Healy-Raes are voting for someone to represent their area as well as possible.

In reality its the opposite: People voted for them *despite* knowing they would not be in a representative position (unless a hung Dail). Their vote is, in large part, a 2 fingered gesture to the established parties.

Having said that, you wont find a harder working politician in the country than a Healy-Rae. The fact that he lines his own pockets along the way is orthogonal....

I feel it is misleading to give a vote to someone as a protest vote

Perhaps, but its a perfectly valid way to exercise your suffrage.

Tell me how

26000 Elephants wrote: »

In reality its the opposite: People voted for them *despite* knowing they would not be in a representative position (unless a hung Dail). Their vote is, in large part, a 2 fingered gesture to the established parties.

Having said that, you wont find a harder working politician in the country than a Healy-Rae. The fact that he lines his own pockets along the way is orthogonal....

Perhaps, but its a perfectly valid way to exercise your suffrage.

The first bolded sentence and the second contradict each other.
The rest of the post doesn't make much sense.