Peter Casey's beliefs of Travellers' ethnicity Part II

xi5yvm0owc1s2b

FrancieBrady wrote: »

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

I don't know that I'd characterize 55.8% as a "vast majority." It's a majority, but I struggle to see what is "vast" or "overwhelming" about it.

Notably, 44.2 percent of people who voted did not vote for Higgins. Higgins also received over 184,000 fewer votes in 2018 than he got in 2011.

But this still doesn't address the core point. You can't continue to cite Casey's vote as just 10 percent of the total electorate and then warble on about how Higgins, with just 24 percent of the total electorate, had the support of the "vast majority." If you want to continue stating that Casey got 10 percent of the total electorate, then you must, for sake of consistency, acknowledge that Higgins got just 24 percent of the same total electorate.

But that would involve acknowledging that the the vast majority of the electorate (76 percent) either stayed at home or voted for a candidate other than Higgins, which puts a bit of a dent in your "overwhelming support" argument.

blanch152

CrankyHaus wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/state-policy-towards-travellers-dodges-employment-question-1.3688569?mode=amp

This is very interesting.
While the article is careful to tip toe around the usual sacred cows it is the first I have ever seen in the Irish Times that identifies problems in the Traveller community as a result of the culture therein and criticises the decades old failed state policy of ignoring this.

This may mark a significant change in the dialogue and policy on this issue and Peter Casey deserves credit for highlighting the issue and shifting the overton window.

"If a Traveller (married with adult dependent and five children) worked as a building labourer at the registered employment agreement rate of €13.77 per hour, his take-home pay for working 39 hours a week for a year would be €25,594 – €806 less than the jobseekers’ allowance. Amazingly, the Traveller taking the building job would also lose the medical card for the family because the income limit for the medical card for a couple with five children is only €24,206. (The stupidity of our welfare system knows no bounds)"


This is amazing. Welfare pays more than work in this country.

What is even more amazing is that the State is paying its own workers - Clerical Officers, Cleaners, Services Officers - less than some of them might get on Welfare.


https://circulars.gov.ie/pdf/circular/per/2017/22.pdf

This is the reason why either welfare needs to be cut or the rewards for work need to be increased.

FrancieBrady

FrancieBrady wrote: »

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.

Keep beating the same drum Francie, it won't distort the fact that over 300,000 people offered Casey first preference. And that number can shut down the country in protest if their concerns are negated.

FrancieBrady

Hattie Puny Litterbug wrote: »

But that would involve acknowledging that the the vast majority of the electorate (76 percent) either stayed at home or voted for a candidate other than Higgins, which puts a bit of a dent in your "overwhelming support" argument.

I said that 'overwhelming' in relation to the numbers voting, not the turnout. Whatever about the Higgins vote and 'vast' etc. He won and won clearly.

The point about a 'protest' vote holds to what you said above. The vast majority of people are just not that bothered, like the poster here and his 6 mates. Easy to rant from a keyboard, but to actually go and do something about it...'nah, I couldn't be arsed' seems to be what happened, or people didn't like the targeting of minority communities, or people didn't see what Casey said as credible or as an issue.

sydthebeat

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I said that 'overwhelming' in relation to the numbers voting, not the turnout. .

the turnout of what?? the numbers that voted ??


:D:D:D:D

FrancieBrady

Laois_Man wrote: »

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

Who could be arsed listening to them if they didn't vote? :rolleyes:

FrancieBrady

sydthebeat wrote: »

the turnout of what?? the numbers that voted ??


:D:D:D:D

He got the overwhelming support of those that voted...half a million ahead in fact and a record margin I believe. (only quoting that from somebody else on here)

mickdw

Francie,
The first preference votes tell us that casey got 41.67 percent of the votes mdh got.
Does not equate to 3 to 1.

You are a joke figure here at this stage.

xi5yvm0owc1s2b

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I said that 'overwhelming' in relation to the numbers voting, not the turnout. Whatever about the Higgins vote and 'vast' etc. He won and won clearly.

Numbers voting and turnout are the same thing, no?

Again, you continue to cite Higgins's vote as a percentage of those who voted while citing Casey's vote as a percentage of the total electorate.

Thus, you can try to claim that Higgins had "overwhelming" support while Casey got "just" 10 percent of the total electorate.

The sleight of hand here is obvious. You aren't fooling anyone but yourself.

Using your own logic, only 24 percent of the electorate voted for Higgins, a figure that is neither vast nor overwhelming.

Laois_Man

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Who could be arsed listening to them if they didn't vote? :rolleyes:

I voted....and I voted for the president.....but I am still not arsed listening to him

Edward M

sydthebeat wrote: »

the turnout of what?? the numbers that voted ??


:D:D:D:D

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

FrancieBrady

Hattie Puny Litterbug wrote: »

Again, you continue to cite Higgins's vote as a percentage of those who voted while citing Casey's vote as a percentage of the total electorate.

Thus, you can try to claim that Higgins had "overwhelming" support while Casey got "just" 10 percent of the total electorate.

The sleight of hand here is obvious. You aren't fooling anyone but yourself.

Using your own logic, only 24 percent of the electorate voted for Higgins, a figure that is neither vast nor overwhelming.

Because it is claimed Casey's vote was a 'protest' vote, which is above and beyond the Presidential vote.

You can't have it two ways.
Again,
In the Presidential election Casey got 23% of a 46% turnout.

If it was a protest vote, he got 10% of the total electorate. I.E. 10% of the electorate felt motivated enough to protest.

givyjoe

FrancieBrady wrote: »

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.

Thankfully it isn't. One of those 'democracies' is North Korea by the way.

Omackeral

FrancieBrady wrote: »

23% of 46% turnout or 10% of the total electorate.

Why have you waited until now to show these figures? You could've shared them before.

FrancieBrady

sydthebeat wrote: »

the turnout of what?? the numbers that voted ??


:D:D:D:D

Apologies just seeing the mistake there, not enough coffee.

'I said that 'overwhelming' in relation to the numbers voting, not the total electorate'

Plumbthedepths

I see the pathetic weaselly posts are continuing. Even blocking you see the nonsense posted. At least the media is beginning to highlight our SEMS friends in a manner unheard of till Casey's remarks. The attempts on here to downgrade his vote is pathetic, destroys any credibility said poster likes to think he has.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I said that 'overwhelming' in relation to the numbers voting, not the turnout. Whatever about the Higgins vote and 'vast' etc. He won and won clearly.

The point about a 'protest' vote holds to what you said above. The vast majority of people are just not that bothered, like the poster here and his 6 mates. Easy to rant from a keyboard, but to actually go and do something about it...'nah, I couldn't be arsed' seems to be what happened, or people didn't like the targeting of minority communities, or people didn't see what Casey said as credible or as an issue.

Yawn, still arguing about yesterday's issues.

The Irish Times criticising Traveller culture and FF reviewing Traveller policy tell us where we have moved to. You can claim you won whatever you want, but the debate has moved on.

Plumbthedepths

blanch152 wrote:

The Irish Times criticising Traveller culture and FF reviewing Traveller policy tell us where we have moved to. You can claim you won whatever you want, but the debate has moved on.

Casey was never going to be President but to use a phrase ' did the state some service'

FrancieBrady

givyjoe wrote: »

Thankfully it isn't. One of those 'democracies' is North Korea by the way.

Hmmm...North Korea is a democracy? More a hereditary dictatorship in my opinion.


I think you really need to do some education there. Sooner the better.

xi5yvm0owc1s2b

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You can't have it two ways...

If it was a protest vote, he got 10% of the total electorate. I.E. 10% of the electorate felt motivated enough to protest.

So you believe that 342,727 people felt motivated enough to go to the polls in protest -- and yet you're downplaying it?

When was the last time the left got more than 50,000 people out to protest for anything?

RandomName2

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Because it is claimed Casey's vote was a 'protest' vote, which is above and beyond the Presidential vote.

You can't have it two ways.
Again,
In the Presidential election Casey got 23% of a 46% turnout.

If it was a protest vote, he got 10% of the total electorate. I.E. 10% of the electorate felt motivated enough to protest.

Would you please shut up.

We ignore people who don't vote as making ascertions about what they were feeling is impossible and serves no purpose. You could say that everyone who didn't vote would have voted Casey but were put off by the polls indicating Casey had no hope of winning. You could say that people who would have voted Gallagher were more likely to be busy at work. We don't do it as it's a stupid thing to do.

You are being really boring. You are repeating yourself, and ignoring figures that don't suit your position. I have no problem with your position, but your insistence on repeating the exact same position over and over again - one that makes no sense - is filling this thread with nonsense posts.

Did you know that only 23% of the country were against the Blasphemy law?
:eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:

Oh wait, no it was 65%. Because we ignore people who don't vote. :mad:

Stop being stupid.

Franz Von Peppercorn

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Because it is claimed Casey's vote was a 'protest' vote, which is above and beyond the Presidential vote.

You can't have it two ways.
Again,
In the Presidential election Casey got 23% of a 46% turnout.

If it was a protest vote, he got 10% of the total electorate. I.E. 10% of the electorate felt motivated enough to protest.

Statistically if everybody was forced to vote you can be certain that the 23% of the vote would be reflected in the non voters. A sample of 46% of the population is far higher than any poll and yet we can tell the electorates voting intentions with a very high degree of confidence from a 1000 person sample. And even a 400 sample is informative.

By the way did you look at the SF votes? Casey almost doing as well as Higgins.

Edward M

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Hmmm...North Korea is a democracy? More a hereditary dictatorship in my opinion.


I think you really need to do some education there. Sooner the better.

Is making voting compulsory not a type of dictation?
It's easy to drop a blank ballot paper in the slot too, unless you would want them inspected beforehand?

FrancieBrady

Hattie Puny Litterbug wrote: »

So you believe that 342,727 people felt motivated enough to go to the polls in protest -- and yet you're downplaying it?

When was the last time the left got more than 50,000 people out to protest for anything?

:D I am not downplaying it, I simply stated what it was in actuality...10% of the electorate and the knicker twisting started.

givyjoe

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Hmmm...North Korea is a democracy? More a hereditary dictatorship in my opinion.


I think you really need to do some education there. Sooner the better.

Oh dear lord, the irony. Your opinion is the key word here. Edit: It does look suspiciously like 'your opinion' came from Google search of 'Is North Korea a Democracy'.

Yes, North Korea according to it's own consitution is a democracy. Elections are held where voting is mandatory, there is of course only one party fronted by the 'great leader'. I see the point completely sailed over your head, to be expected based on your work here. North Korea is an example of what 'democracies' who make voting mandatory, look like, i.e. a sham of a democracy.

xi5yvm0owc1s2b

FrancieBrady wrote: »

:D I am not downplaying it, I simply stated what it was in actuality...10% of the electorate and the knicker twisting started.

Can you indicate where you stated the analogous figure for Higgins -- i.e., just 24 percent of the total electorate? Or were you too busy crowing about how the "vast majority of people" supported him?

FrancieBrady

RandomName2 wrote: »

Would you please shut up.

We ignore people who don't vote as making ascertions about what they were feeling is impossible and serves no purpose. You could say that everyone who didn't vote would have voted Casey but were put off by the polls indicating Casey had no hope of winning. You could say that people who would have voted Gallagher were more likely to be busy at work. We don't do it as it's a stupid thing to do.

You are being really boring. You are repeating yourself, and ignoring figures that don't suit your position. I have no problem with your position, but your insistence on repeating the exact same position over and over again - one that makes no sense - is filling this thread with nonsense posts.

Did you know that only 23% of the country were against the Blasphemy law?
:eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:

Oh wait, no it was 65%. Because we ignore people who don't vote. :mad:

Stop being stupid.

It isn't I that is maintaining that this was a 'protest vote'.
It is that claim that makes sense of my argument. Because we are not then looking at a vote for a president. We are looking at a 'protest' and how big that vote is.

You guys and gals just want to have it both ways.

xi5yvm0owc1s2b

Edward M wrote: »

Is making voting compulsory not a type of dictation?
It's easy to drop a blank ballot paper in the slot too, unless you would want them inspected beforehand?

Australians can be fined or even summonsed to court for not voting. Why would we want such a system in Ireland?

FrancieBrady

givyjoe wrote: »

Oh dear lord, the irony. Your opinion is the key word here. Yes, North Korea according to it's own consitution is a democracy. Elections are held where voting is mandatory, there is of course only one party fronted by the 'great leader'. I see the point completely sailed over your head, to be expected based on your work here. North Korea is an example of what 'democracies' who make voting mandatory, look like, i.e. a sham of a democracy.

There are 22 democracies in the world where voting is compulsory, yet you pull North Korea to make a point about something something something. :rolleyes:

You are correct, your 'point' sailed happily over my head, to be gone forever one hopes.

FrancieBrady

Hattie Puny Litterbug wrote: »

Can you indicate where you stated the analogous figure for Higgins -- i.e., just 24 percent of the total electorate? Or were you too busy crowing about how the "vast majority of people" supported him?

Just one example where I made it clear what I was saying.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=108561313&postcount=931