Peter Casey's beliefs of Travellers' ethnicity Part II

Roger Hassenforder

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Go learn something about how this democracy works.

You voted for the winner. Very simple.

Not voting gives you no right to complain in my opinion.

In fairness Francie, you dont forfeit any rights or entitlements, by not excercising your democratic right to vote. That's an element of democracy. Its not my opinion. Its a fact.

Now it might be regarded as rediculous to decry the result of an election, had you not bothered to vote. But thats now whats at play here.

givyjoe

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Go learn something about how this democracy works.

You voted for the winner. Very simple.

Not voting gives you no right to complain in my opinion.

More irony and nonsense. We are living in a democratic country where I can choose to vote or not to vote.

As for no right to complain about your opinion, what in the name of god are you waffling on about. You're talking absolute nonsense over and over, distorting figures to suit your narrative, what on earth has that go to do with me voting or not?!:eek:

FrancieBrady

Omackeral wrote: »

Going from 2% to 23% in a week absolutely indicates a huge mobilisation of a protest vote. That's just not even up for debate. For someone so hell bent on quoting numbers, you would think that would be obvious to you... actually, you know it is and I know you know it is.

Ok, if 10% of the electorate is 'huge' I must have been asleep the day they did the meaning of that word in school.
It is a huge jump in his percentage though. Which I have no problem agreeing with.

Omackeral

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I said before, had Casey plumped to have a pop at immigrants, he'd have got a similar vote share.

That's based on my own observations of the electorate btw.

Must be observing some other world sh*t so. When do you ever hear of people complaining about the Chinese over here for example? Or pubs shutting down when a few French people roll in.

Omackeral

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

So how the jump from 2% to 23%
Something resonated with the electorate

Did you not hear him? He said 23% of Kingsmill and 46% of the end of the road, which is 10% of Michael SF Higgins.

Omackeral

sydthebeat wrote: »

any political party being 23% in a general election would be kingsmill makers.

That's better

Omackeral

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Yes, something did. We know there is a percentage in the country who have a bias and prejudice against ALL travellers and who would like measures deployed against all travellers unilaterally.

Hang on, you said if Casey plumbed to criticising immigrants, he'd have had the same support. So is everyone prejudiced against them too in your eyes?

Roger Hassenforder

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Ok, if 10% of the electorate is 'huge' I must have been asleep the day they did the meaning of that word in school.
It is a huge jump in his percentage though. Which I have no problem agreeing with.

Thats what she/he said/is saying, yet you're denying it and confirming it in the same breath!
Astonishing verbal gymnastics on display.

Omackeral

Everybody needs to start reciting this;

23 of 46

23 of 46

23 of 46

FrancieBrady

givyjoe wrote: »

More irony and nonsense. We are living in a democratic country where I can choose to vote or not to vote.

As for no right to complain about your opinion, what in the name of god are you waffling on about. You're talking absolute nonsense over and over, distorting figures to suit your narrative, what on earth has that go to do with me voting or not?!:eek:

If you don't vote, you give the right to others to make decisions for you.
YOU took yourself out of that.
You are crying over something you couldn't be arsed affecting the outcome of. Pathetic.
The people on here decrying/regretting Casey not getting it to a second count and transfers have YOU, you 6 mates and anyone else, who agreed with Casey and didn't vote, to blame. Because by not voting YOU and yer mates increased Higgin's winning margin. A spoiled vote would have stopped that.
Hope that makes you feel good!
You technically voted for the incumbent. If you had any idea of how the system works you would know that. * I am a democrat, and even if I disagree with who you vote for, I detest people who don't vote, I hope you can detect that. It is a shameful thing to do, or not do.

So go whinge to yer mates, your voice is redundant.

FrancieBrady

Omackeral wrote: »

Hang on, you said if Casey plumbed to criticising immigrants, he'd have had the same support. So is everyone prejudiced against them too in your eyes?

No, as already clearly stated, IMO around the 10-15 percentile are.

Plumbthedepths

Omackeral wrote:

Hang on, you said if Casey plumbed to criticising immigrants, he'd have had the same support. So is everyone prejudiced against them too in your eyes?

You know he is just trying to get enough of a rise out of you to justify a ' report'. His comments are pathetic at this stage, thats why I put him on ignore. The Indo and Times are carrying articles now that 3 weeks ago would have been unheard of. Casey despite his amateurish nature has achieved something than many have wanted for years.

MrMusician18

Omackeral wrote: »

Everybody needs to start reciting this;

23 of 46

23 of 46

23 of 46

A small minority...

Where have I heard that phrase before??

Omackeral

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I am a democrat, and even if I disagree with who you vote for, I detest people who don't vote, I hope you can detect that. It is a shameful thing to do, or not do.

Question. What if there's nobody on the ballot you approve of? What does one do in that instance?

MrMusician18

Omackeral wrote: »

Question. What if there's nobody on the ballot you approve of? What does one do in that instance?

There's always a shinner so that doesn't arise

Omackeral

FrancieBrady wrote: »

No, as already clearly stated, IMO around the 10-15 percentile are.

Is that clearly 10% of the 23% or 15% of the 46% or

givyjoe

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If you don't vote, you give the right to others to make decisions for you.
YOU took yourself out of that.
You are crying over something you couldn't be arsed affecting the outcome of. Pathetic.
The people on here decrying/regretting Casey not getting it to a second count and transfers have YOU, you 6 mates and anyone else, who agreed with Casey and didn't vote, to blame. Because by not voting YOU and yer mates increased Higgin's winning margin. A spoiled vote would have stopped that.
Hope that makes you feel good!
You technically voted for the incumbent. If you had any idea of how the system works you would know that. * I am a democrat, and even if I disagree with who you vote for, I detest people who don't vote, I hope you can detect that. It is a shameful thing to do, or not do.

So go whinge to yer mates, your voice is redundant.

Francie, you (bizarrely) detest folks who don't vote. i detest folks who literally don't read what I've posted and twist what I and others have said. I don't give a flying fcuk about the presidency, hence I didn't vote. I've already explained some of my reasons why. I'm commenting on your ludicrous twisting of facts on an after hours thread. I'm Not complaining about Casey not being elected, I don't care!. No amount of throwing your toys out of the pram is going to dissuade me (and others) from calling you out on your 'logic'.

Omackeral

Omackeral wrote: »

Is that clearly 10% of the 23% or 15% of the 46% or

I don’t know what a tracker mortgage is.

FrancieBrady

Omackeral wrote: »

Question. What if there's nobody on the ballot you approve of? What does one do in that instance?

Spoil your vote.

If you support a candidate (as the poster here says he and his 6 mates did) and don't get off your arse to vote, technically you make it harder for that candidate to win.

mickdw

Francie, post 923, you claim mdh out polled everyone by 3 votes to 1.
Can you explain your maths on that one as a really enjoying you maths here.

You are only hammering home how the casey result has got under your skin.

Roger Hassenforder

FrancieBrady wrote: »

...I am a democrat, and even if I disagree with who you vote for, I detest people who don't vote, I hope you can detect that. It is a shameful thing to do, or not do.

So go whinge to yer mates, your voice is redundant.

As a democrat you should respect how people vote. Choosing not to vote is an aspect of democracy you seem to have difficulties with.


Maybe you'd prefer a socialist democratic peoples republic where theres 100% turn out for the great leader with 99% in favour

givyjoe

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Spoil your vote.

If you support a candidate (as the poster here says he and his 6 mates did) and don't get off your arse to vote, technically you make it harder for that candidate to win.

Oh change the tune ffs. Your continual sniping posts are nauseating as is your inability in your posts to accurately reference what posters have said.

Spoiling your vote is a completely inadequate means of signalling your dissatisfaction with the candidates put forward. Spoiled votes cannot be broken down into ones which were intentionally spoiled or if someone make a balls of the ballot. An option for 'none of the above' would clearly give people a simple and clear means of signalling their dissatisfaction with the candidates put forward.

I look forward to reading your interpretation of the above post.:rolleyes:

FrancieBrady

mickdw wrote: »

Francie, post 923, you claim mdh out polled everyone by 3 votes to 1.
Can you explain your maths on that one as a really enjoying you maths here.

You are only hammering home how the casey result has got under your skin.

I picked it up from a previous post actually.

Here are the first preference amounts.

Higgins 822,566
Casey 342,736

xi5yvm0owc1s2b

FrancieBrady wrote: »

...only getting 10% of the electorate out on a sidebar election was pretty shambolic.

It is much more likely that the vast majority of people are like me - firstly, we wanted to pick the right person for the job (the purpose of the election)

Hold on a moment.

First, you state that only 10 percent of the electorate voted for Casey.

Then you state that the "vast majority of people," like you, supported Higgins.

In reality, only 24 percent of the total electorate voted for Higgins. By your own logic, how does that constitute a "vast majority"?

Your tactics are evident here. Downplay Casey's vote by repeatedly stating it not as a percentage of votes cast, but as a percentage of the total electorate. In the same breath, continue to claim that the "vast majority" supported Higgins.

You can't have it both ways. If you wish to insist that 90 percent of the electorate didn't vote for Casey, you also must acknowledge that 76 percent of the electorate didn't vote for Higgins, either.

Omackeral

Abstaining is a legitimate option if you don't care for any of the candidates. I can see how spoiling a vote is a legitimate form of expressing same too. I wouldn't declare that I despise anyone if they chose either option. Seems hateful to say that. Kinda hate speechy.

FrancieBrady

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

As a democrat you should respect how people vote. Choosing not to vote is an aspect of democracy you seem to have difficulties with.


Maybe you'd prefer a socialist democratic peoples republic where theres 100% turn out for the great leader with 99% in favour

Don't vote? Then you abdicate any right to complain about what you get. Simple as that for me.

If it were me, then voting would be compulsory like it is in some other democracy's.

RandomName2

dav3 wrote: »

If people seriously want to discuss travellers, they need to reach the absolute bare minimum requirement to be taken seriously . That applies to everyone, moderators and admins included.

Well I suppose that makes sense, and not exclusive to this topic, but discussion in general..

dav3 wrote: »

You need to accept that travellers are an ethnic minority and that they are an ethnic minority under law.

Oh so that's the bare minimum you mean. Not a minimum in terms of manners, or logic, or linguistic prowess, but a criteria of your own choosing dav3.

You have said that people who don't accept the ethnicity of travelers will be ignored, disdained, their opinions disregarded. Leave aside whether they are or not, should they be? The only way to judge this is to subject your position to logical scrutiny.

dav3 wrote: »

You need to understand that ethnicity is not the same as nationality or place of birth.

You need to understand that racism is the belief in the superiority of one race over another, which often results in discrimination and prejudice towards people based on their race or ethnicity.

This nicely sums up the argument, and for that I commend you dav3. You did not dance around your position, but articulated it fairly clearly.

Fairly, because you have said what ethnicity isn't, but not what it is, and you've said that racism isn't merely based on race, but also ethnicity, so that's an important omission.

I'll take the dictionary definition

The fact or state of belonging to a social group that has a common national or cultural tradition.

We'll discount national tradition, as that's clearly no interest to you. Therefore we are left with a cultural tradition.

So the assertion is that racism is a belief that one's own culture is superior to that of another culture.

Really? Really?

Really?

I'd say that there are very solid grounds to say that one culture is better than another. What about a culture that has slavery, child marriage, human sacrifice, homophobia, etc. . I'd say that Western culture is superior to all that. That makes me a racist in your eyes?

But let's say that that's true. Criticizing homophobia in another culture is a racist thing to do. Let's say that you are right.

What is the Traveler culture? Today? How is it distinct from Irish culture?

• Bare knuckle fighting.
• Very large, extravagant weddings
• Living in halting sites.
• Very insular communities.

That's it. Today. Go back 100 years ago the picture was quite different, but not so today. There is no specific traditions, religion, speech, architecture, rituals, dance, or history of this group of people that is not shared by everyone in Ireland.

They used to have child marriage and travel around the country, but the law has become tougher on both those aspects (trespass laws in relation to the second thing).

Does bare-knuckle fighting and weddings really constitute an ethnicity? Is there a bare minimum of what constitutes an ethnicity?

Are there dozens of Irish ethnicities? There are different accents, traditions, etc. in different parts of the country. Are we all minorities?

I think there is a reason why the people complaining about Casey have made no effort to show what makes Travelers a distinct ethnicity. I think the vagueness suits them. They say that Casey is being used as a vehicle for attacking a minority, without any self awareness that they are using the term 'ethnicity' to attack a majority.

FrancieBrady

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I picked it up from a previous post actually.

Here are the first preference amounts.

Higgins 822,566
Casey 342,736

Those 2 figures speak volumes. For every vote PC got, MDH got 2.5. And people still think PC was wrong in what he said. The next General Election is going to be very interesting. People are sick to the teeth of minority groups like AAA/PBP/Solidarity Independents who shout the loudest and try to put a stop to any progress in the country.

FrancieBrady

Hattie Puny Litterbug wrote: »

Hold on a moment.

First, you state that only 10 percent of the electorate voted for Casey.

Then you state that the "vast majority of people," like you, supported Higgins.

In reality, only 24 percent of the total electorate voted for Higgins. By your own logic, how does that constitute a "vast majority"?

Your tactics are evident here. Downplay Casey's vote by repeatedly stating it not as a percentage of votes cast, but as a percentage of the total electorate. In the same breath, continue to claim that the "vast majority" supported Higgins.

You can't have it both ways. If you wish to insist that 90 percent of the electorate didn't vote for Casey, you also must acknowledge that 76 percent of the electorate didn't vote for Higgins, either.

I have already clarified that Vox.

The vast majority, the overwhelming amount of THOSE THAT VOTED, supported Higgins in the presidential election.

The figures for a protest vote are:
23% of 46% turnout or 10% of the total electorate.

Laois_Man

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Don't vote? Then you abdicate any right to complain about what you get. Simple as that for me.

How many people can be really arsed about complaining about the what they get in an Irish presidential election!