So Michael D IS running again!

alaimacerc wrote: »

Slightly presidential in some cases, I'd say.

No, I think they will all sound presidential on this one. It isn't that hard to do to be honest.

It's seemingly like a one-and-two-fifths-horse race at the moment. Which of Riada and Gallagher is going to pull clear of the other? Maybe even get a nice expenses cheque! (OK, her party in one case.)

Signs are the general public have cottoned on to Sean. The vague plámas is begining to wear thin showing very little substance beneath. It Ni Riada's pitch to run the length of if she is up to it.
I suspect we will soon be getting the 'wha did you do in the war?' questions soon, as another shinner knocks on the door.

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Farming is a tradition too. There is the farming community.
'Colour swatch scale' You seem to be really chomping at the bit for a sniff or racism.

A sniff? I'm positively holding my nose here, between this and the AH thread. The lack of self-awareness here is astonishing. "Doesn't count as 'racism', as they don't count as a 'race'." I've heard people from East Galway -- not all of Galway, mind, just East Galway -- refer to themselves as a 'race'. Do you feel that the Irish never experienced racism at the hands of the Brits or the Yanks, because same colour, same race

I'm specifically talking about the travelling community.

Not so much "specifically", as seeking to single them out to a positively creepy extent, frankly. I'm pointing out the contrasts in your prejudices, not any similarity.

They should not have been given ethic status IMO. Their traditions differ to the average Irish person on the most superficial levels.

So, ethnographers know nothing, DNA analysts know nothing, your "opinion" is that they're not a "real" ethnic group, and coincidentally enough, you should be fully allowed to work away in expressing and implementing your prejudices about them? That about the size of it?

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I suspect we will soon be getting the 'wha did you do in the war?' questions soon, as another shinner knocks on the door.

I doubt it, I don't think she's really "opened the door" to anything in that area. Indeed, the poppy comment might have earned her a bit of capital in that area.

Though Peter Casey's in the room, so an uncontrolled verbal detonation is always a possibility.

Wheeliebin30

FrancieBrady wrote: »

No, I think they will all sound presidential on this one. It isn't that hard to do to be honest.

Signs are the general public have cottoned on to Sean. The vague plámas is begining to wear thin showing very little substance beneath. It Ni Riada's pitch to run the length of if she is up to it.
I suspect we will soon be getting the 'wha did you do in the war?' questions soon, as another shinner knocks on the door.

Nah even her party have called her out on the poppy nonsense.

She made a complete balls of that.

Deer in the headlights.

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Nah even her party have called her out on the poppy nonsense.

She made a complete balls of that.

Deer in the headlights.

I agree with O'Broin, her wearing the poppy is entirely consistent with her promise to be a 'non party' president.

'Terrible failure by the bearded old men in the Hills of Belfast to threaten the party fearful and brainwashed into line on this btw. One would think a rash of free speech has broken out in SF!

Eric Cartman wrote: »

I never said anything about freehold, also the only time before the pavee point statement that 'renting' the land was mentioned was by one of the women on the site in a newspaper interview. Their original gripe is that land was 'promised' to their father.

You said they claimed "they didn't want free land", and did so mendaciously. What exactly did you mean by "want free land", if not "wanted to be given title to land for nothing"?

If they intended to rent the houses, I assume they'd have hoped to rent any associated additional land, too. On the face of it, their account checks out, and yours doesn't.

They also have said that they weren't asking for stables but said they would put up sheds themselves. In what capacity in Ireland will the council 'rent' you land you're allowed to put sheds on .....

So you are now shifting the goalposts from "lies!" to "... they made a request that may or may not fit the usual council tenancy model".

Hopefully they're only jumpers, so the moving is easily done.

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Nah even her party have called her out on the poppy nonsense.

Some people in her party have said that a) they wouldn't, and b) they don't think the president should.

Soooo, as far as I know, there's no party position on this. And none of the statements have impinged on what Ni Riada herself should do, come 11/11.

alaimacerc wrote: »

You said they claimed "they didn't want free land", and did so mendaciously. What exactly did you mean by "want free land", if not "wanted to be given title to land for nothing"?

If they intended to rent the houses, I assume they'd have hoped to rent any associated additional land, too. On the face of it, their account checks out, and yours doesn't.

So you are now shifting the goalposts from "lies!" to "... they made a request that may or may not fit the usual council tenancy model".

Hopefully they're only jumpers, so the moving is easily done.

they're not renting the houses though, they are being given 1.7 million of housing in exchange for relinquishing the claim they have on their current site.

rovertom

Ni Riada speaks well, is not a nordie, is a proper Irish speaker and comes across well.
She could have had a real chance but for the SF bit.

Eric Cartman wrote: »

they're not renting the houses though, they are being given 1.7 million of housing in exchange for relinquishing the claim they have on their current site.

Ah! I missed that detail entirely. I've no idea of the strength of value of their claim, so I'd need a whole lot more detail on that before I'd much of a notion as to whether their "demands" were at all fair. Not least, concrete info on what they actually were.

If they've gone from wanting pre-construed stables to be owned by them, to wishing to rent nearby land, you could regard that as "shifting the goalposts", or as "negotiations going a blinder for Tipp CC"...

alaimacerc wrote: »

Ah! I missed that detail entirely. I've no idea of the strength of value of their claim, so I'd need a whole lot more detail on that before I'd much of a notion as to whether their "demands" were at all fair. Not least, concrete info on what they actually were.

If they've gone from wanting pre-construed stables to be owned by them, to wishing to rent nearby land, you could regard that as "shifting the goalposts", or as "negotiations going a blinder for Tipp CC"...

well they were on the old site for over 40 years so its safe to assume they have begun or completed adversely possessing it. I'd say thats the more likely outcome, the story played out terribly for the travellers in the media and it basically gave Tipp CC all the ammo they needed to say no to them.

James Brown

alaimacerc wrote: »

A sniff? I'm positively holding my nose here, between this and the AH thread. The lack of self-awareness here is astonishing. "Doesn't count as 'racism', as they don't count as a 'race'." I've heard people from East Galway -- not all of Galway, mind, just East Galway -- refer to themselves as a 'race'. Do you feel that the Irish never experienced racism at the hands of the Brits or the Yanks, because same colour, same race

Not so much "specifically", as seeking to single them out to a positively creepy extent, frankly. I'm pointing out the contrasts in your prejudices, not any similarity.

So, ethnographers know nothing, DNA analysts know nothing, your "opinion" is that they're not a "real" ethnic group, and coincidentally enough, you should be fully allowed to work away in expressing and implementing your prejudices about them? That about the size of it?

So the Irish state was being racist right up until it gave them their very own ethnic status? I disagree. You are seeing racism were there is merely a disagreement on term of reference. I recognise they are a community unto themselves within the broader more common Irish one, I do not believe it warrants them having their own status as an ethnic group.
You're throwing in colour swatching and anecdotes from Galway. Now you've moved on from colour to the Irish getting treated badly when on foreign shores for being Irish in a foreign land.
DNA is it? ethnographers was it? Most of us are part something else ffs. FYI: Ethnicity is not about colour, nor race in some cases. Explain to me how my stance is prejudice?
Would you give over.

walshb

I think Casey has to step down from that race, whether one agrees with his view or not. He is going for President. The office is supposed to be above that, impartial and absolutely not speaking out negatively (“true” or not) about sections of society...

walshb wrote: »

I think Casey has to step down from that race, whether one agrees with his view or not. He is going for President. The office is supposed to be above that, impartial and absolutely not speaking out negatively (“true” or not) about sections of society...

its about time somebody in Irish politics told the truth.

batgoat

Eric Cartman wrote: »

its about time somebody in Irish politics told the truth.

Ireland doesn't need a Donald Trump style figure, nowhere does tbh.

walshb

Eric Cartman wrote: »

its about time somebody in Irish politics told the truth.

That is my point. The office is supposed to be above politics, and supposed to be impartial..

batgoat wrote: »

Ireland doesn't need a Donald Trump style figure, nowhere does tbh.

I think theres a huge difference in calling out the travellers to take responsibility for themselves and that they're not a 'diverse ethnic group' and Donald trump.

Nothing wrong with pointing out the elephant in the room.

batgoat

Eric Cartman wrote: »

I think theres a huge difference in calling out the travellers to take responsibility for themselves and that they're not a 'diverse ethnic group' and Donald trump.

Nothing wrong with pointing out the elephant in the room.

Of course you do but targeting a minority group to gain support is a very Trump style tactic. But I don't imagine it'll be very successful for him in terms of votes.

Danzy

We could have Casey in the Áras screaming about travellers and Corbyn in No. 10 on about Jews.

Liven up the News no doubt.

Next round of the debates about to start.

Predictions?

I think they will all have accepted that MDH is a shoe in and largely leave him alone.
Expecting fireworks as the rest try to devour each other.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I think they will all have accepted that MDH is a shoe in and largely leave him alone.
Expecting fireworks as the rest try to devour each other.

Everyone attacks Casey.

Then everyone attacks MDH and SG for their previous no-show.

Next, LNR and SG attack each other, in the spirit of fighting to death for 2nd place/their expenses.

Finally, everyone goes back to attacking MDH.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Next round of the debates about to start.

Predictions?

I think they will all have accepted that MDH is a shoe in and largely leave him alone.
Expecting fireworks as the rest try to devour each other.

everyone to pretend like what Casey said wasn't their own belief until they were told it wasn't by their media campaign at the start of this.

walshb wrote: »

I think Casey has to step down from that race, whether one agrees with his view or not. He is going for President. The office is supposed to be above that, impartial and absolutely not speaking out negatively (“true” or not) about sections of society...

Won't happen. As I opined on another thread, he's the National Pub Boor. He's already spent his €200k getting everyone a round in. He's damned well going to get his money's worth.

Hurrache

Gallagher saying, without a hint of irony, in a most lethargic opening that if we want someone with energy, vote for him

Desiree Burch

Freeman looks like a corpse.