nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

So Michael D IS running again!

realdanbreen

So when Michael D was campaigning for president and said it would be a one off term he was lying?
Many voted for him because he was only going for one term and wasn't trying to hog the job for 14 years.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Edward M

Liadh Ni Riada is coming under fire over her industrial wage claims in the info.
Not bad for "average" industrial wage?

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/presidential-election-2018/n-riada-has-collected-200k-in-expenses-from-european-union-37456392.html

Wheeliebin30

Edward M wrote: »

Liadh Ni Riada is coming under fire over her industrial wage claims in the info.
Not bad for "average" industrial wage?

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/presidential-election-2018/n-riada-has-collected-200k-in-expenses-from-european-union-37456392.html

Another champagne socialist.

They are all lying snakes.

Vote Casey no 1.

Rhineshark

Sorry to reopen the Traveller ethnicity debate but since I did put out the argument for them being one...

Thing is, they fit the definition as it stands. And ethnicity is woolly for a purpose, which is when you are counting or calculating identity, the edges are going to be fuzzy. Hell, nationality gets a bit woolly too. Ulster Scots are also an ethnicity as it stands.

However, and while a section of a population splitting off and remaining split off for 800-1000 years on their own defined territory would probably be more accepted, it probably isn't what the definition was intended for and I grant it isn't quite the same as say, Native Americans or Sami despite this process (separation and isolation over many generations) being the basis for any difference in human populations. Which goes back to blanch's point if "how much difference is enough?".

That aside, we do have a distinct group within the population and in other enclaves around the world that have been doing things differently for generations and that identity is strong enough to be kept even by settled Travellers. Including Travellers overseas, we're looking at about 65-95,000 people, about 30,000 of which live in Ireland. It was a viable way of life until only about two generations ago. It no longer is, unfortunately for them. And that is how life goes, and people have to adapt. And the settled population can either help or hinder that.

I still have a major issue with Casey's line of country though. He wasn't even aware that they had been granted that status as he subsequently admitted. It was pure rabble-rousing for attention. And for his own benefit he did it sweepingly across all Travellers, settled, travelling, entirely minding their own business or not. That sort of crap puts the whole slow and difficult process of integrating people with that background back four or five steps. And the ones that will actually get the worst of it are not the isolated, self-contained seperate Travellers following a way of life that almost inevitably brings conflict with the rest of the population but rather settled Travellers whose kids are in local schools and exposed to the sort of nastiness that Casey's remarks stirred. Stigmatising them (and it did, as part of his scattershot approach) does not precisely encourage settling or integration.

Short version - they meet the definition but I'm inclined to agree (blanch, since we were mostly talking about it) that the definition is a bit too stretched. But ethnicity itself does not actually mean that they are exempt from the legal system and nor should it. So it's probably not the hill to die on as it has been granted and then removing it again would only increase resentment and distrust and solve nothing. Also, pulling a Casey on attacking everyone of that group for political gain only makes it harder to solve.

Silentcorner

alaimacerc wrote: »

You're a bit late pleading lack of knowledge of betting as any sort of excuse, having made a claim expressly about that. Let me remind you of the statement I put you right on:

If the bookies odds are anything to go by, exactly the reverse is the case. Are we clear on that yet? If you keep yes-but-no-butting and banging on about polls to deflect from that, perhaps not, but I suspect you're the only one you're fooling at this point.

He's the clear leader, the odds are shortening, but somehow it's "a much closer affair"? On what basis? Yer man Casey joining the arm-wrestle for a distant second place, and making it even more distant in the process? Even what you "imagine" doesn't even remotely add up, even on its own terms.

And what "kind" is that, exactly? Even your insults seems decidedly schematic at this point. The "kind" that doesn't believe in sketchy conspiracy theories at the drop of a hat? It's a fair cop.

The bookies odds are all we have to go on....because of the absence of any polling, something you are dismissing or ignoring, but I think it is bizarre, given that in this election in 2011 we had two polls in the last week, but your explanation is that none were scheduled!!!

For about the forth time, in the absence of polls, we have no idea where support is at for any of the candidates.

So, we have shifting odds for two candidates in particular.

Peter Caseys odds have shortened for one reason only, he support is increasing, yet again, in the absense of polls, we do not have any idea by how much.

The point I made origionally, was how odd it was there are no polls in the field or that any mention of the possibility of a surge in support is being discussed. In the belief that MDH's lead has decreased by some amount, what amount no one knows.

MDH odds are also shortening, but I am suggesting that his odds are shortening because of a proximity to polling day and the acceptance that he won't be caught.

You are suggesting that his odds have shortened because his support has risen above 68%...

I think you can actually see the utter stupidity of your own argument at this stage...at least I hope you do!!

McMurphy

I dont think Casey said he'd like to see their status revoked, just that he thought it was BS to begin with.

It's called an opinion.

He's entitled to own one.

seamus

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

I dont think Casey said he'd like to see their status revoked, just that he thought it was BS to begin with.

It's called an opinion.

He's entitled to own one.

And everyone else is entitled to have their own opinion on his opinion, and to call him out on it. Especially when it's unqualified guff.

On the odds shortening thing, it's worth remembering that this is just a reflection of what people are betting on, not any real-time analysis of voters.

McMurphy

Of course people are entitled to call him out on his opinion.

I don't seen anyone denying that .

Wanderer78

seamus wrote:

On the odds shortening thing, it's worth remembering that this is just a reflection of what people are betting on, not any real-time analysis of voters.

I do think he ll surprise us all tomorrow, I do think he ll poll very well even though Higgins will probably win easily

VinLieger

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Another champagne socialist.

They are all lying snakes.

Vote Casey no 1.

Casey is just as much of a lying snake if not the biggest one, believing otherwise is naive in the extreme

blanch152

Eric Cartman wrote: »

The Maria Cahill answer out of the spinner was shameful, absolutely disgraceful 'there was wrongdoing on both sides' just apologise.

Did she really say that? "Wrongdoing on both sides" in relation to Mairia Cahill?

What did the abused girl do wrong?

Tell me how

I would like to see Peter Casey debate his position with someone from Pavee point with Pat Kenny chairing it after this election.

I believe travellers (in the core identification of the group) are unique and part of our cultural history and this should be recognized, and supported.

I also think that a lot of people have been affected by some form of criminal activity which has been carried out by members of the travelling community (I include littering at temporary sites in this).

And I believe travellers should hold greater responsibility for their participation in education amongst other areas of their lives.

I don't know if both sides think it is so obvious that they are right that we don't see them discuss and defend them simultaneously. There's little value in each side offering their soundbites to media individually.

I do think travellers taking part in criminal behavior are not just mistreating the direct victims but also their own culture as it leads to animosity towards them and is unfair on those that are law abiding (as with any society).

Finally, I think this topic should not have been part of the election for the office if the president.
I'm inclined to believe that Peter Casey was dog whistling in introducing it and persisting with it.

VinLieger

Tell me how wrote: »

I would like to see Peter Casey debate his position with someone from Pavee point with Pat Kenny chairing it after this election.

I believe travellers (in the core identification of the group) are unique and part of our cultural history and this should be recognized, and supported.

I also think that a lot of people have been affected by some form of criminal activity which has been carried out by members of the travelling community (I include littering at temporary sites in this).

And I believe travellers should hold greater responsibility for their participation in education amongst other areas of their lives.

I don't know if both sides think it is so obvious that they are right that we don't see them discuss and defend them simultaneously. There's little value in each side offering their soundbites to media individually.

I do think travellers taking part in criminal behavior are not just mistreating the direct victims but also their own culture as it leads to animosity towards them and is unfair on those that are law abiding (as with any society).

Finally, I think this topic should not have been part of the election for the office if the president.
I'm inclined to believe that Peter Casey was dog whistling in introducing it and persisting with it.

I think Casey is entirely the wrong person to do this as he would make a shambles of the entire thing due to his atrocious lack of ability to speak in public on seemingly any subject. Pavee point tend to be very well spoken and know their stuff and my impression of casey is he might do a quick google before discussing a topic but thats about the height of it, so they would probably just run rings around him until he started getting angry and then saying more stupid things so ultimately the whole thing would be a disaster

FrancieBrady

Tell me how wrote: »

I would like to see Peter Casey debate his position with someone from Pavee point with Pat Kenny chairing it after this election.

I believe travellers (in the core identification of the group) are unique and part of our cultural history and this should be recognized, and supported.

I also think that a lot of people have been affected by some form of criminal activity which has been carried out by members of the travelling community (I include littering at temporary sites in this).

And I believe travellers should hold greater responsibility for their participation in education amongst other areas of their lives.

I don't know if both sides think it is so obvious that they are right that we don't see them discuss and defend them simultaneously. There's little value in each side offering their soundbites to media individually.

I do think travellers taking part in criminal behavior are not just mistreating the direct victims but also their own culture as it leads to animosity towards them and is unfair on those that are law abiding (as with any society).

Finally, I think this topic should not have been part of the election for the office if the president.
I'm inclined to believe that Peter Casey was dog whistling in introducing it and persisting with it.

It is quite clear to me it was his tactic. He tries to pretend it wasn't and that his weekend off wasn't a stunt.
If he didn't mean for it to come out that way, why skip down to Tipp for what was essentially a cheap exploitative photo op?

He is the type of person who loves to throw grenades into a conversation and then stand back watching the effects, smiling imbecility.

Jameswhalley

It looks to me anyway like the dragons were treated the presidential race as a business opportunity .

Sink a few bob into it and benefit from the publicity and prestige.

Jameswhalley

I like Duffy's style in all this .

He's a pretty cool guy, has to be said

blanch152

Tell me how wrote: »

I would like to see Peter Casey debate his position with someone from Pavee point with Pat Kenny chairing it after this election.

I believe travellers (in the core identification of the group) are unique and part of our cultural history and this should be recognized, and supported.

I also think that a lot of people have been affected by some form of criminal activity which has been carried out by members of the travelling community (I include littering at temporary sites in this).

And I believe travellers should hold greater responsibility for their participation in education amongst other areas of their lives.

I don't know if both sides think it is so obvious that they are right that we don't see them discuss and defend them simultaneously. There's little value in each side offering their soundbites to media individually.

I do think travellers taking part in criminal behavior are not just mistreating the direct victims but also their own culture as it leads to animosity towards them and is unfair on those that are law abiding (as with any society).

Finally, I think this topic should not have been part of the election for the office if the president.
I'm inclined to believe that Peter Casey was dog whistling in introducing it and persisting with it.

https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/ep/p-cp8iter/p8iter/p8itseah/

Someone posted a link to the CSO Census report on travellers in After Hours.

There are some shocking statistics relating to education of women and them being stuck in the home that really expose the misogynist nature of Traveller culture.

Tell me how

blanch152 wrote:

There are some shocking statistics relating to education of women and them being stuck in the home that really expose the misogynist nature of Traveller culture.

See, this is exactly my point.

I would like that discussed by opposing views simultaneously. There is absolutely misinformation/tweaking of facts on both sides.

Soundbite statements to friendly/eager ears is pointless.

VinLieger

Tell me how wrote: »

See, this is exactly my point.

I would like that discussed by opposing views simultaneously. There is absolutely misinformation/tweaking of facts on both sides.

Soundbite statements to friendly/eager ears is pointless.

I think it would be great to see but i dont know who to put on the opposite side to Pavee Point, the only people you will get to volunteer are people like Casey who will do more harm to the discussion than good

Tell me how

VinLieger wrote:

I think it would be great to see but i dont know who to put on the opposite side to Pavee Point, the only people you will get to volunteer are people like Casey who will do more harm to the discussion than good

Does anyone have any names they'd like to represent the "travellers need to be more responsible" side?

Peter Casey?
Niall Boylan?

Capt'n Midnight

mrbrianj wrote: »

We will be in a different world post Brexit let alone 7 years time - can you imagine Casey's form of diplomacy or Gallagher river dancing tripe trying to patch up relations with a troubled NI/UK

with Brexit and a possible NI border poll coming up there is also the consideration that Ní Riada wouldn't go down well with the unionist community or the Tory party.

Tell me how

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

with Brexit and a possible NI border poll coming up there is also the consideration that NÃ Riada wouldn't go down well with the unionist community or the Tory party.

They might be some way inclined towards her if she was wearing a poppy. Although her own party colleagues might think differently.....

Hurrache

blanch152 wrote: »

Did she really say that? "Wrongdoing on both sides" in relation to Mairia Cahill?

What did the abused girl do wrong?

She said that in relation to being asked would she call it terrorism, dodged the question by saying what you quoted.

mrbrianj

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

with Brexit and a possible NI border poll coming up there is also the consideration that Ní Riada wouldn't go down well with the unionist community or the Tory party.

Correct - I should have included Ni Riada in that point.

Zubeneschamali

Silentcorner wrote: »

The bookies odds are all we have to go on....!

So, looking at the odds on MichaelD, is the race getting closer, or not?

I'll give you a hint: it is not. In the same period that Casey came in from 200/1 to 20/1, MichaelD came in from 1/33 to 1/50.

1/50 suggests that the bookie thinks there is a 98% chance MichaelD will win.

The questions for Casey are: 1. can he climb from last place where he was in the polls to somwhat higher in the rankings, and 2. can he claw his way to 12.5% to get his expenses back. Magic 8-ball says 1. Most likely and 2. Don't count on it.

seamus

If you want to have a proper debate, both sides need to research the topic. One's personal feelings on a topic are actually irrelevant; you should be able to research the facts and then carry on a competent debate sitting on either side of the table.

The problem is that often people watching don't understand this. Those who do their research know that if they sit on the "criticising travellers" side of the table, it will damage their reputation.

Any debate on travellers needs to come from a centrist place. It needs to be a discussion between people who have done their research and aren't representing one side or the other. A back-and-forth where one side shouts racist generalisations and the other side cries racism, does absolutely no good for anyone, society, or otherwise.

Tell me how wrote: »

Does anyone have any names they'd like to represent the "travellers need to be more responsible" side?

Peter Casey?
Niall Boylan?

FrancieBrady

Hurrache wrote: »

She said that in relation to being asked would she call it terrorism, dodged the question by saying what you quoted.

Republicans, as a rule, won't use the word 'terrorism' to describe what happened.

Unless you are prepared to define anyone who took part in the conflict/war as 'terrorists'.
Because, believe me, the BA and Loyalists terrorised nationalist communities just as much as the IRA 'terrorised' loyalist communities and the British government.

The 'label' is defunct and meaningless.

Tell me how

seamus wrote: »

If you want to have a proper debate, both sides need to research the topic. One's personal feelings on a topic are actually irrelevant; you should be able to research the facts and then carry on a competent debate sitting on either side of the table.

The problem is that often people watching don't understand this. Those who do their research know that if they sit on the "criticising travellers" side of the table, it will damage their reputation.

Any debate on travellers needs to come from a centrist place. It needs to be a discussion between people who have done their research and aren't representing one side or the other. A back-and-forth where one side shouts racist generalisations and the other side cries racism, does absolutely no good for anyone, society, or otherwise.

This doesn't have to be a single debate to end all debates. The problem with using centrists is that any body who thinks their view was not correctly represented will cry foul.

If everyone in the country thinks the same as Peter Casey, somebody with an academic background and awareness of impartiality must be present to advocate said views.

If all "right minded people" know the facts, then one of them should be ok with being asked to discuss pointed questions.

Hurrache

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Republicans, as a rule, won't use the word 'terrorism' to describe what happened.

Unless you are prepared to define anyone who took part in the conflict/war as 'terrorists'.
Because, believe me, the BA and Loyalists terrorised nationalist communities just as much as the IRA 'terrorised' loyalist communities and the British government.

The 'label' is defunct and meaningless.

You'll find plenty of republicans who indeed will use the word terrorism to describe the various terrorist acts carried out by the IRA. I think what you mean is that Sinn Fein won't use the word.

There's no reason for a redefinition of anything.

I don't think anyone is surprised that you, unaffiliated with SF in anyway you claim, refer to terrorism as a defunct and meaningless label.

Kind of you to remind us of the British Army and loyalist terrorist groups, a nice bit of unrelated whataboutery.

FrancieBrady

Hurrache wrote: »

You'll find plenty of republicans who indeed will use the word terrorism to describe the various terrorist acts carried out by the IRA. I think what you mean is that Sinn Fein won't use the word.

There's no reason for a redefinition of anything.

I don't think anyone is surprised that you, unaffiliated with SF in anyway you claim, refer to terrorism as a defunct and meaningless label.

Kind of you to remind us of the British Army and loyalist terrorist groups, a nice bit of unrelated whataboutery.

Get back to me when you hear an Irish journalist badgering a representative of the British government to admit to and apologise for their 'terrorism' or even the Head of The British Armed Forces when she visits here.

Mentioning the other players in a conflict/war is 'whataboutery' now? Oh dear. :rolleyes:

Hurrache

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Get back to me when you hear an Irish journalist badgering a representative of the British government to admit to and apologise for their 'terrorism' or even the Head of The British Armed Forces when she visits here.

Mentioning the other players in a conflict/war is 'whataboutery' now? Oh dear. :rolleyes:

More whatabout.....