People like SF candidates but won't vote for SF

SafeSurfer wrote: »

I didn’t expect you to apologise for mis quoting me. Just more waffle to retrospectively point score.

If I misquoted you, I apologise for not getting the wording precisely correct.

We were discussing MM's performance in a C&S arrangement in government.

You are correct, you actually asked 'What commitments MM had broken since he became leader'

He was the leader who published the FF manifesto of 2016 and has led FF since 2011. :rolleyes:

ohnonotgmail

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If I misquoted you, I apologise for not getting the wording precisely correct.

We were discussing MM's performance in a C&S arrangement in government.

You are correct, you actually asked 'What commitments MM had broken since he became leader'

He was the leader who published the FF manifesto of 2016 and has led FF since 2011. :rolleyes:

It is very easy to get the wording precisely correct when you quote another poster. Functionality to do that is provided by boards.ie. There is no excuse for getting it wrong.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If I misquoted you, I apologise for not getting the wording precisely correct.

We were discussing MM's performance in a C&S arrangement in government.

You are correct, you actually asked 'What commitments MM had broken since he became leader'

He was the leader who published the FF manifesto of 2016 and has led FF since 2011. :rolleyes:

A polite FYI for you

“A manifesto is a publication issued by a political party before a General Election. It contains the set of policies that the party stands for and would wish to implement if elected to govern.”

Note the last line”if elected to govern”.

SafeSurfer wrote: »

A polite FYI for you

“A manifesto is a publication issued by a political party before a General Election. It contains the set of policies that the party stands for and would wish to implement if elected to govern.”

Note the last line”if elected to govern”.

And note what was included in the C&S agreement.

– recognise Fianna Fáil’s right to bring forward policy proposals and bills to implement commitments in its own manifesto;

Of the commitments made by MM and FF in the 2016 that I and others listed...the situation got worse.

Bishop of hope

FrancieBrady wrote: »

And note what was included in the C&S agreement.

Of the commitments made by MM and FF in the 2016 that I and others listed...the situation got worse.

And how many SF promises from the last election were implemented?
They went into hiding after the last election and didn't appear until a Govt was formed
Three years in hiding north of the border, agreed to a pension age increase up there but demanding it be brought down here.
How is the housing crises going in the North?

FrancieBrady wrote: »

And note what was included in the C&S agreement.

Of the commitments made by MM and FF in the 2016 that I and others listed...the situation got worse.

And what’s that got to do with the price of face masks in China?

Bring forward proposals to government which government decides on.

Bishop of hope wrote: »

And how many SF promises from the last election were implemented?

SF were not in a C&S arrangement. They were in opposition.

SafeSurfer wrote: »

And what’s that got to do with the price of face masks in China?

Bring forward proposals to government which government decides on.

'Bring forward proposals in their manifesto'

FrancieBrady wrote: »

'Bring forward proposals in their manifesto'

Yes “bring forward” to government.

You are saying MM broke a commitment because the government didn’t implement his proposals.

This gets more and more ridiculous.

ohnonotgmail

Bishop of hope wrote: »

And how many SF promises from the last election were implemented?
They went into hiding after the last election and didn't appear until a Govt was formed
Three years in hiding north of the border, agreed to a pension age increase up there but demanding it be brought down here.
How is the housing crises going in the North?

to be fair we should be grateful that they never got the opportunity to implement any.

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Yes “bring forward” to government.

You are saying MM broke a commitment because the government didn’t implement his proposals.

This gets more and more ridiculous.

So how many bills did he present to meet the commitments he made on the list I and others posted?

This is why he walked into haymakers from Varadkar and MLM in the debate.

Bishop of hope

FrancieBrady wrote: »

SF were not in a C&S arrangement. They were in opposition.

But not a coalition, confidence and supply is totally different. They are actually listed as the main opposition party.
You also didn't address the rest of my post.

Bishop of hope wrote: »

But not a coalition, confidence and supply is totally different. They are actually listed as the main opposition party.
You also didn't address the rest of my post.

Same question to you...how many bills did FF present to fix the problems they committed to addressing in their 2016 manifesto?
How many from other parties did they oppose?

The facts are that those problems got worse.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So how many bills did he present to meet the commitments he made on the list I and others posted?

This is why he walked into haymakers from Varadkar and MLM in the debate.

What difference does it make if he “presented”, as you say, 10 or 100? It wasn’t his decision if his proposals were acted upon by government or not.

I mean it’s completely ridiculous. SF supporters blame every failure of their governance in the north by saying, oh that wasn’t Sinn Féin’s decision to make, that was the British government. Yet in the south they blame parties, not even in government for decisions made by government.

It’s some twisted logic.

SafeSurfer wrote: »

What difference does it make if he “presented”, as you say, 10 or 100? It wasn’t his decision if his proposals were acted upon by government or not.

I mean it’s completely ridiculous. SF supporters blame every failure of their governance in the north by saying, oh that wasn’t Sinn Féin’s decision to make, that was the British government. Yet in the south they blame parties, not even in government for decisions made by government.

It’s some twisted logic.

The government collapsed because eventually FF couldn't support it anymore. To say they had no power to effect change or live up to their commitments in a C&S is plainly nonsense.

They sat by and watched the worst crisis's ever happen in health and housing. Just like FG sat by and watched FF crash the economy. Both of them furiously wash their hands of course.

SF are liable for criticism too SS. Nobody is saying they aren't.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The government collapsed because eventually FF couldn't support it anymore. To say they had no power to effect change or live up to their commitments in a C&S is plainly nonsense.

They sat by and watched the worst crisis's ever happen in health and housing. Just like FG sat by and watched FF crash the economy. Both of them furiously wash their hands of course.

SF are liable for criticism too SS. Nobody is saying they aren't.

Nice deflection. The point we are debating is your assertion that Michael Martin broke the commitments in his election manifesto despite not being in government to implement those commitments.

Nowhere in C&S does the government commit to implementing the FF manifesto and government ultimately decide what to implement or not implement.

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Nice deflection. The point we are debating is your assertion that Michael Martin broke the commitments in his election manifesto despite not being in government to implement those commitments.

Nowhere in C&S does the government commit to implementing the FF manifesto and government ultimately decide what to implement or not implement.

What 'deflection'?

FF had power...the power to collapse the government. Did they use it while all the things they committed to fixing got worse and worse?

No they didn't. Fact.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What 'deflection'?

FF had power...the power to collapse the government. Did they use it while all the things they committed to fixing got worse and worse?

No they didn't. Fact.

You are incorrigible. You are using Michael Martins keeping of his commitment not to collapse the government during Brexit as evidence of his likelihood to break commitments.

It’s a ridiculous point to put forward.

SafeSurfer wrote: »

You are incorrigible. You are using Michael Martins keeping of his commitment not to collapse the government during Brexit as evidence of his likelihood to break commitments.

It’s a ridiculous point to put forward.

Is 'Brexit' over? Didn't know that. I thought it was just about to begin.

We are not going to agree here, I think he took a soft route to keeping his party in recovery mode and to a large extent sat back while situations in key areas got worse.

I'll leave that there, no point in repeating ad nauseum.

JohnnyFlash

SafeSurfer wrote: »

You are incorrigible. You are using Michael Martins keeping of his commitment not to collapse the government during Brexit as evidence of his likelihood to break commitments.

It’s a ridiculous point to put forward.

You might as well be trying to reason with the wall, dude. Don’t take this place seriously - it’s a cesspit designed for endless nitpicking and thinly veiled insults. Only a moron would take it seriously or think it someone contributes to the civic discourse on politics and society.

facehugger99

FrancieBrady wrote: »

FF had power...the power to collapse the government. Did they use it while all the things they committed to fixing got worse and worse?

No they didn't. Fact.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

An election was called because the government was going to collapse. Why? Because FF were going to 'take their ball(C&S) home'.

Francie I hate to be the one to tell you your account's been hacked.

There's obviously someone on the other live SF thread (don't worry, you're still far and away the top poster on both - keep floating), that's posting the opposite of what you're posting regarding FF collapsing the Govt.

You should really look into this.

facehugger99 wrote: »

It's impressive all right.

SF must be paying Francie by the post.

50 posts yesterday defending SF from Board's resident 'floating voter'.

Great insight. Is this the Hello magazine thread?

SafeSurfer wrote: »

I didn’t expect you to apologise for mis quoting me. Just more waffle to retrospectively point score.

Not too many out FF'ers around here. I admire your bravery.

facehugger99 wrote: »

Francie I hate to be the one to tell you your account's been hacked.

There's obviously someone on the other live SF thread (don't worry, you're still far and away the top poster on both - keep floating), that's posting the opposite of what you're posting regarding FF collapsing the Govt.

You should really look into this.

Collapsing it after 4 years is a virtue? Okie doke. :rolleyes:

Bishop of hope wrote: »

But not a coalition, confidence and supply is totally different. They are actually listed as the main opposition party.
You also didn't address the rest of my post.

And absolutely nobody believes that, but on paper yes.

Matt Barrett wrote: »

And absolutely nobody believes that, but on paper yes.

This is it.
It is a part of the 'how people con themselves' point.
They've had a 100 years at it now. Obviously they are very good at conning themselves.

facehugger99

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Obviously they are very good at conning themselves.

Says the lad who thinks the Shinners can build houses for €65k a pop due to 'economies of scale'. :pac:

facehugger99 wrote: »

Says the lad who thinks the Shinners can build houses for €65k a pop due to 'economies of scale'. :pac:

A policy that's for the working tax payer how ever many they build. New concept I know.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

This is it.
It is a part of the 'how people con themselves' point.
They've had a 100 years at it now. Obviously they are very good at conning themselves.

You are talking about democracy. Is democracy a con job?