Exit poll: The post referendum thread. No electioneering.

gctest50 · 02-06-2018 3:49pm

Shurimgreat wrote: »

..........

and who want to facilitate women from Northern Ireland down here, putting more pressure on an already stretched healthcare service.

.

First, who in their right mind would turn away a woman from Northern Ireland needing a medical/surgical procedure ?

And for the last few decades, we've put pressure on a stretched health service in Liverpool / Manchester etc - we "owe" them time

Water John · 02-06-2018 4:04pm

Shrum, your's is a totally unprofessional analysis of voting and related stats. It doesn't work that way.
It was an unforeseen margin, not predicted by anyone.

Fighting Tao · 02-06-2018 4:43pm

iguana wrote: »

Well for the next 40 days it's penance.
http://www.broadsheet.ie/2018/06/01/kathy-go-home/

NIMBYism. Sure it was grand to export abortion. No penance needed for doing so.

Graces7 · 02-06-2018 4:53pm

Fighting Tao wrote: »

Every day it’s something new and I can’t be arsed getting into it because at the end of the day every single no voter would end up a hypocrite if it was them or a loved one that needed an abortion.

Not true. The only losers in all this are the babies being deprived of life itself , and all those who enable that .

Wrongway1985 · 02-06-2018 5:00pm

Shurimgreat wrote: »

On the Yes side you have those who will no doubt in years to come push for the 12 week cutoff to be increased, who want abortion freely available both on the medical card or not and who want to facilitate women from Northern Ireland down here, putting more pressure on an already stretched healthcare service.

Down here?? Where do you think you are? many miles away is it? The problems with the healthcare system are irrelevant to the issue, they need to be alleviated in time sure (not Shur btw :pac:) but using that as an excuse to block services to block a portion of women just because they live up the road is of low mentality.

Our countries women were given help in other countries for years and one of your ideas is to ensure our country denies other women? Bizarre.

Fighting Tao · 02-06-2018 5:14pm

Graces7 wrote: »

Not true. The only losers in all this are the babies being deprived of life itself , and all those who enable that .

Septic tanks! They were babies! Oh but they were born so they don’t count.

Anyways, so what about the church picking an choosing when it likes abortions and when it doesn’t?

retro:electro · 02-06-2018 5:20pm

Graces7 wrote: »

Not true. The only losers in all this are the babies being deprived of life itself , and all those who enable that .

What about the babies deprived of live who were thrown in a septic tank. The ones sold to wealthy Americans and still search high and low to this very day for their birth certs? The babies who were trusted in the care of the church only for that trust to be abused as they were raped and abused. What about those babies? And all those who enabled it?
You don’t give a flying fiddly fcuk about babies once they’re born and can be manipulated and molded by your toxic practises.

spookwoman · 02-06-2018 5:39pm

Don't hold your breath waiting for an answer from Graces7. She'll ignore your posts and put up another one about "babies" deprived of life or a smart arse comment about how the no side were cheated out of winning

Still waiting for my questions to be answered as well.

JRant · 02-06-2018 5:45pm

Wrongway1985 wrote: »

Down here?? Where do you think you are? many miles away is it? The problems with the healthcare system are irrelevant to the issue, they need to be alleviated in time sure (not Shur btw :pac:) but using that as an excuse to block services to block a portion of women just because they live up the road is of low mentality.

Our countries women were given help in other countries for years and one of your ideas is to ensure our country denies other women? Bizarre.

We most certainly shouldn't be blocking anyone from using the services but they should pay for the costs involved. The health system is most certainly pertinent to the discussion whether you like it or not. It cannot provide this service free of charge to all and sundry. If it's a medical emergency/FFA/exceptional circumstances then absolutely the State should support it but for the rest it needs to be paid for by the end user.

Wrongway1985 · 02-06-2018 6:12pm

JRant wrote: »

We most certainly shouldn't be blocking anyone from using the services but they should pay for the costs involved. The health system is most certainly pertinent to the discussion whether you like it or not. It cannot provide this service free of charge to all and sundry. If it's a medical emergency/FFA/exceptional circumstances then absolutely the State should support it but for the rest it needs to be paid for by the end user.

Who suggested not paying? you? :pac:, the talk is GP led service so for the majority of cases means cost of GP visit(s) + prescription pills. The health service is open to scrutiny across the board as it stands of course, regardless of the country voting to allow for abortion I think you know that.

It wasnt me123 · 02-06-2018 6:16pm

Graces7 wrote: »

Not true. The only losers in all this are the babies being deprived of life itself , and all those who enable that .

Boo feckin Hoo

Cry me a river, build a bridge and get over yourself. Even some of the God botherers voted Yes. Pity you aren't so bothered about the 800 babies thrown into a septic tank in Tuam. So you force women to carry a baby to 9 months, then feck it in a sess pit once its born. Theres compassion for you, RCC style.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1 · 02-06-2018 6:48pm

I'm getting sick to death of the attitude of many No voters. I admit to voting No myself, for reasons that are irrelevant here. But these No voters going on about a sizeable minority are delusional and I wonder what they define a landslide result as. Then they are trumpeting about protests at clinics etc. Well how dare they protest with holy rosaries in front of people who may be going through turmoil.

Their newfound 'compassion' for babies is hypocritical when we look at the attitude they had to single mothers and their children in the past. For some of them even the very notion of sex is abhorrent.
Many of them have never even had a child themselves and I know at least one of these mouthpieces who didn't even have a vote.
The clergy, in their Sunday sermons last week, certainly didn't endear themselves to what is an ever dwindling congregation; with many families in my parish alone leaving the church during the homily.

The country has spoken and we must respect this. And practising Christians in their hundreds of thousands voted Yes with a clear conscience, whether these waffling holy Joes want to believe so or not.

Hammer Archer · 02-06-2018 7:50pm

Shurimgreat wrote: »

A walkover?
66.4% of a 64% turnout.
Nearly 60% of the electorate didn't support repeal or the legislation to follow it.
Of the 64% who voted, nearly 50% don't support unrestricted abortion up to 12 weeks.
So something like 67% or 2/3rds of the registered electorate do not support unrestricted abortion up to 12 weeks.
Only 1/3rd support unrestricted abortion. Doesn't sound over-whelming to me!

So the stats can be used in many ways to look at the result. Either way the mandate for unrestricted abortion is weak to say the least.

By your logic, the mandate to enact the 8th back in 1983 was even weaker. 65% of the electorate didn't support it given the 53.7% turnout.

Infini · 02-06-2018 8:03pm

The pro-life NO side really are coming out as both sore losers and on top of it refuse to accept the reality that when it came down to it, their argument's and reasoning fell flat and was full of holes and hypocritical in a sense. They lost the referendum by 2 to 1 on the day. I'd expected a 55/45 split myself or in that area not a landslide 66% which goes to show you how many people in this country are good at seeing through ignorant BS.

Fact is the people have decided in a referendum that the 8th was not fit for purpose and didn't fit with our society today and as such the NO side need to get over this and realise that the majority of people in this country don't like third parties interfering in highly sensitive matter's like this. This isn't the Brexit vote with a slim majority its a decisive result and nothing is going to change that reality.

Overheal · 02-06-2018 8:09pm

Shurimgreat wrote: »

A walkover?
66.4% of a 64% turnout.
Nearly 60% of the electorate didn't support repeal or the legislation to follow it.
Of the 64% who voted, nearly 50% don't support unrestricted abortion up to 12 weeks.
So something like 67% or 2/3rds of the registered electorate do not support unrestricted abortion up to 12 weeks.
Only 1/3rd support unrestricted abortion. Doesn't sound over-whelming to me!

So the stats can be used in many ways to look at the result. Either way the mandate for unrestricted abortion is weak to say the least.

No mate, you’re pretending that there is an argument in trying to count those that don’t vote however you want.

For those interested here are Irish turnouts in referendums: http://www.thejournal.ie/eighth-amendment-turnout-4036664-May2018/ the highest ever was just over 70% in 1972 to join the EU.

The point being made, is this is one of the highest turnouts in Irish electoral history and it is farcical to try and question the legitimacy of the outcome.

You can’t conclude d!ck from the silent voter. Except that they didn’t go to the polls. Maybe they didn’t care. Maybe they were on the fence and have no opinion either way. Maybe they couldn’t make it to the poll, find the babysitter, make it through traffic, or didn’t care for the lines at the poll (Dublin City had the lowest turnout, hmmm). Perhaps they were dead. Or hospitalized. Could also be they are counted more than once on the register.

While it makes fun fodder to say Donald Trump didn’t win the popular vote (mostly because it *really* upsets him) and was only voted in by 60 Million Americans, it doesn’t not make him the President of the USA.

Another poster already explained the exit poll ballot to you so I won’t repeat that.

Hammer Archer wrote: »

By your logic, the mandate to enact the 8th back in 1983 was even weaker. 65% of the electorate didn't support it given the 53.7% turnout.

Even weaker than that when you factor the population and resulting electorate growth!

Achasanai · 02-06-2018 8:48pm

It's interesting to see the tactics that the No side are coming up with (both here and with the 'official' people). It essentially boils down to denying that it was a landslide and also that people didn't know what they were voting for re legislation/weren't happy with what was offered re legislation.

I was expecting this if it was repealed 50.1/49.9 or even 55/45 but it's amazing that it's being done with a 65% repeal vote. Desperation.

Taytoland · 02-06-2018 8:53pm

If the No side feel so strong on it just move to Northern Ireland. Simple solution.

AllForIt · 02-06-2018 9:55pm

Barbara Melted Bassoon wrote: »

I'm getting sick to death of the attitude of many No voters. I admit to voting No myself, for reasons that are irrelevant here. But these No voters going on about a sizeable minority are delusional and I wonder what they define a landslide result as. Then they are trumpeting about protests at clinics etc. Well how dare they protest with holy rosaries in front of people who may be going through turmoil.

After the gay marraige ref results were confirmed I will never forget Breda O'Brien of IONA being asked on a RTE panel discussion for her reaction and I paraphrase "It is now time to listen to the 700,000 odd people who voted No. WHAT? After they had their way for so long and were outnumbered 2/1 roughly.

In her latest IT commentary her headline goes "Referendum result does not override conscience - Anti-abortion medics feel threatened and fearful in a newly intolerant Ireland"

What boils my nut about this hysterial spinning is that she thinks us lay ppl are so stupid that we are going to swallow her garbage talk.

iguana · 02-06-2018 10:38pm

AllForIt wrote: »

What boils my nut about this hysterial spinning is that she thinks us lay ppl are so stupid that we are going to swallow her garbage talk.

Why are they getting the platform they are getting? Why is it that the handful of people that are so desperately trying to hold Ireland back getting so much airtime and column inches? Why are Breda O'Brien, Cora Sherlock, David Quinn, Ronan Mullens and Maria Steen all so, so prominent? Obviously they push for those positions of authority for themselves but why the hell are the media not just promoting their nonsense but paying them for it?

fxotoole · 02-06-2018 10:42pm

iguana wrote: »

Why are they getting the platform they are getting? Why is it that the handful of people that are so desperately trying to hold Ireland back getting so much airtime and column inches? Why are Breda O'Brien, Cora Sherlock, David Quinn, Ronan Mullens and Maria Steen all so, so prominent? Obviously they push for those positions of authority for themselves but why the hell are the media not just promoting their nonsense but paying them for it?

Democracy and freedom of the press

end of the road · 02-06-2018 10:56pm

It wasnt me123 wrote: »

Boo feckin Hoo

Cry me a river, build a bridge and get over yourself. Even some of the God botherers voted Yes. Pity you aren't so bothered about the 800 babies thrown into a septic tank in Tuam. So you force women to carry a baby to 9 months, then feck it in a sess pit once its born. Theres compassion for you, RCC style.

what makes you bothered about the babies in tuam and graces7 not bothered about them? because you voted the "correct" way?
graces7's posts on the issue (which i have read) show the complete opposite to what you claim.

Fighting Tao · 02-06-2018 10:58pm

I wonder if they are paid for their self promotion piece because they are relics of the past and the papers know their target market. Only relics of the past tend to buy newspapers these days.

_Dara_ · 02-06-2018 11:39pm

AllForIt wrote: »

After the gay marraige ref results were confirmed I will never forget Breda O'Brien of IONA being asked on a RTE panel discussion for her reaction and I paraphrase "It is now time to listen to the 700,000 odd people who voted No. WHAT? After they had their way for so long and were outnumbered 2/1 roughly.

In her latest IT commentary her headline goes "Referendum result does not override conscience - Anti-abortion medics feel threatened and fearful in a newly intolerant Ireland"

What boils my nut about this hysterial spinning is that she thinks us lay ppl are so stupid that we are going to swallow her garbage talk.

What undid the No campaign was their treating of the electorate as complete morons who need their oh-so-wise council.

My father experienced a No campaigning group last week, maybe three days before the referendum. They were so patronising towards him. He said “It’s a complicated issue” and the leader of the pack said “No no no, there’s nothing complicated about it at all” and he retorted “Excuse me, but it’s very complex”. He said they had a list of No advocates printed on a board, all with lots of initials after their names as if to say “Listen to us, plebeians, we’re here to tell you right from wrong.” He was so disgusted with this and the No campaign in general that he came very close to abstaining. For someone as deeply involved in politics as him, that’s huge. He did vote no in the end but for his own reasons.

The high profile No campaign came in two hues: either irrational people screaming ‘babby murderers!!!!’ or incredibly smug and patronising fart-smellers. The moderate voices were nowhere to be heard. The No campaign was a huge swing-and-a-miss.

I’ve heard it said that the Yes campaign was as bad. Was it shite. It wasn’t perfect by any stretch but was a far more positive campaign.

Shurimgreat · 03-06-2018 12:04am

retro:electro wrote: »

What about the babies deprived of live who were thrown in a septic tank. The ones sold to wealthy Americans and still search high and low to this very day for their birth certs? The babies who were trusted in the care of the church only for that trust to be abused as they were raped and abused. What about those babies? And all those who enabled it?
You don’t give a flying fiddly fcuk about babies once they’re born and can be manipulated and molded by your toxic practises.

Do you accept that if the Tuam babies were conceived today many if not most would be aborted?
Would you consider this a more humane outcome for them?
Most aborted babies via abortion pills also end up in septic tanks. Sorry to be graphic about it but thats the truth.
Tuam babies in septic tanks bad.
Aborted foetuses in septic tanks good.
Such is modern Ireland.

Doctor Jimbob · 03-06-2018 12:07am

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Do you accept that if the Tuam babies were conceived today many if not most would be aborted?
Would you consider this a more humane outcome for them?
Most aborted babies via abortion pills also end up in septic tanks. Sorry to be graphic about it but thats the truth.
Tuam babies in septic tanks bad.
Aborted foetuses in septic tanks good.
Such is modern Ireland.

Yes, aborting a foetus is a significantly better option than killing a living baby. Are you seriously asking this?

Shurimgreat · 03-06-2018 12:10am

AllForIt wrote: »

After the gay marraige ref results were confirmed I will never forget Breda O'Brien of IONA being asked on a RTE panel discussion for her reaction and I paraphrase "It is now time to listen to the 700,000 odd people who voted No. WHAT? After they had their way for so long and were outnumbered 2/1 roughly.

In her latest IT commentary her headline goes "Referendum result does not override conscience - Anti-abortion medics feel threatened and fearful in a newly intolerant Ireland"

What boils my nut about this hysterial spinning is that she thinks us lay ppl are so stupid that we are going to swallow her garbage talk.

No side does not equal Iona Institute. Its the equivalent of saying white america equals KKK or something like that. Its really not that difficult.

spookwoman · 03-06-2018 12:12am

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Do you accept that if the Tuam babies were conceived today many if not most would be aborted?
Would you consider this a more humane outcome for them?
Most aborted babies via abortion pills also end up in septic tanks. Sorry to be graphic about it but thats the truth.
Tuam babies in septic tanks bad.
Aborted foetuses in septic tanks good.
Such is modern Ireland.

Do you think this is acceptable instead?
"In 2014 it was revealed in a report compiled by Michael Dwyer of Cork University’s School of History 2,051 children from state-run homes were used as medical guinea pigs for the pharma giant Burroughs Wellcome during the 1930s. "
or this
"Before Dwyer’s 2012 report, a damning report by the Irish government’s Health Service Executive (HSE) found that the Irish Catholic mother and child homes had an infant mortality rate of 68% in 1943. The report shows that, according to the Register of Deaths, Bessborough Mother and Baby home during certain months in the 1940s the death rate among children living in the home amounted to a child dying roughly every second day."
or this
"More than 80 of the 472 infant deaths have malnutrition listed as the cause of death."

Shurimgreat · 03-06-2018 12:12am

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Yes, aborting a foetus is a significantly better option than killing a living baby. Are you seriously asking this?

So you are saying Tuam nuns deliberately murdered babies in their care?
Exageration and lies much?
Or maybe they died of diesases? 800 babies over something like 40 years.
20 babies a year. A deathrate probably no greater than the general population.
Hysteria is great though.

Doctor Jimbob · 03-06-2018 12:14am

Shurimgreat wrote: »

So you are saying Tuam nuns deliberately murdered babies in their care?
Exageration and lies much?
Or maybe they died of diesases? 800 babies over something like 40 years.
20 babies a year. A deathrate probably no greater than the general population.
Hysteria is great though.

I'll take your word for it, you seem to be an expert.

Phoebas · 03-06-2018 12:17am

Shurimgreat wrote: »

No side does not equal Iona Institute. Its the equivalent of saying white america equals KKK are something like that. Its really not that difficult.

During the campaign the No side chose Iona institute people to represent them in various of the debates, so it's not so easy to disown them now.

If you don't want to be associated with the KKK, don't put the KKK forward to represent you on Prime Time.

Exit poll: The post referendum thread. No electioneering.

Comments