FrancieBrady wrote: » So as President he proposes to make grandiose and rabble rousing statements, and then feck all else to resolve them? Way to go Peter. Not hard to have a guess at who his mentor/idol might be.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Stop being deliberately obtuse please. I made a claim, go back and read it. It most certainly does not say that FG and FF are afraid of an election because a majority are in favour of one. That was what you wanted to see in what I said. I said they are using that as an excuse. When you have fairly even numbers of both views is a perfectly reasonable time to call an election and attempt to get a clear mandate...without fear or favour.
blackwhite wrote: » Are you seriously pretending to be incapable of comprehending that 46% is higher than 44%? New low tbh
FrancieBrady wrote: » By your curious but typical logic; nobody would ever call an election.
alaimacerc wrote: » Ivana Bacik's name was dropped in, last night... Some degree of party discipline would in theory have made a difference.
blanch152 wrote: » I am not getting into a discussion about whether Peter is right or wrong, I have no interest in that. You posted that he "refused to go and engage with the people involved down in Thurles". I thought that was interesting and went and checked the news article and it was much more boring and mundane. All I was doing was correcting the record on what happened so that nobody else would be caught out by the inaccurate reference.
alaimacerc wrote: » 12.5%+1, IIRC. Someone might be clinging on for the extra half a percent, you know! (One thing I'm not entirely certain about is whether there's a transfer of the winner's surplus (if any). I'm guessing yes. Could be an argument for bullet-voting!)
blanch152 wrote: » I went and read the news article. He visited the site which he said he would do. It doesn't say he "refused to go and engage" with anybody. He says he left without speaking to them. That could mean many things. Maybe he took health and safety advice and left quickly.https://www.rte.ie/news/presidential-election/2018/1018/1005086-presidential-election/ "Independent presidential candidate Peter Casey has visited a new housing estate for members of the Travelling community in Thurles, Co Tipperary" "Today, he left Cabragh Bridge without speaking to members of the Travelling community nearby."
FrancieBrady wrote: » According to the news there, Casey refused to go and engage with the people involved down in Thurles. So 'all mouth and no solutions Casey', he is.
Matt Barrett wrote: » One can only hope that despite the cynical me feiner politics we currently endure Irish people en masse at their heart are decent enough to see through such chancers.
pixelburp wrote: » The whole Casey issue has given me a kick in my presumptuous backside in thinking the Irish electorate was more informed and less prone to obvious topical, emotional manipulation. I'm not convinced Casey knew what he getting into, but it certainly had the desired effect in completely avoiding discussion about the man's background and status - financial or otherwise.
Hitman3000 wrote: » Well done answering a question with a question. Although all you have done is answer or respond in a sneering condescending manner to every poster with a different opinion to you. Nothing more to say other than if Casey hadn't rattled cages you and a few like you would not be here posting in the manner which you are. I wouldn't be responding to you further. Bye bye, ;-)
Rhineshark wrote: » Tbh, I'm a little bemused at how easily people are falling for Casey. Before the Traveller thing, Casey couldn't open his mouth without saying something dumb and I don't think I saw any interest in him. He was an eejit. He goes for a controversial comment that some people like hearing and suddenly nope, all is forgiven, the man is a courageous truth-teller in a world gone mad and should be president. Like, it's not like we haven't seen the *exact same methodology* over the past TWO YEARS where mostly people could absolutely see it for what it was. Guy tries it here and...yep, people are just as inclined to fall for it. At least the Americans and British had the excuse of not having seen it as much before.
Hurrache wrote: » As multitalented as he is, I don't think he put them up himself.
alaimacerc wrote: » Francie would somehow manage to be among them, too. Within hours of an election being called, there will be reams on how "the establishment parties" have caused an election for their own cynical purposes. (Wouldn't be entirely wrong either, mind.)
CH3OH wrote: » I prefer Casey for his honesty, but the others are attacking each other to Higgins benefit
alaimacerc wrote: » I don't recall saying that, so you're disagreeing with... yourself?
alaimacerc wrote: » I think the Irish state was at the least remiss. There's been expert testimony for some time that they are an ethnic group, and a demand from them to get it. Clearly it was very politically unpopular in many quarters, hence it didn't happen.
alaimacerc wrote: » Why's it a matter of "warranting"? You disagree with the accepted academic criteria for determining what is and isn't an ethnic group? Or just reject them as not to your political liking?
alaimacerc wrote: » Le sigh. I haven't "moved on" at all. I'm still trying to hammer home the same point: that you're trying to cheese-pare definition of what is and isn't "racism". There's not a scientific notion of "race"; it's a sociological construct; thus, so is racism. There's not a qualitative difference between the experience of prejudice of Travellers in Ireland, and that of the Irish "in a foreign land", as you put it.
alaimacerc wrote: » For my information? That's a bit rich, as I've been trying explain that to you for several posts now. We're trying to determine why you think that Travellers can't be an ethnic group. Other than you badly don't want them to be. I can only infer it's because that shines a light on your negative attitude to them that you're uncomfortable with. Pick one of those and stick with it!
blackwhite wrote: » Your argument is that 44% wanting election means that they shouldn’t be scared to be seen to be the party that caused an election However 46% not wanting an election is exactly why being blamed for an election would cost them votes. But please - continue to spin and push your usual agenda. Can’t let any pesky facts gets in the way of that :rolleyes:
FrancieBrady wrote: » For someone who attempts to be so eloquently dismissive you don't seem to up to date or able to use Google. Can't post links on the phone but try the latest IT poll.
