maccored wrote: » people want change. FF and FG (and obviously those like yourself) dont. If you think talking crap on boards makes that reality any different then you are greatly mistaken
Fred Cryton wrote: » 10% of the electorate voted for change ( this was the increase in SF support). You could argue maybe another 5% voted for change through the Greens, representing their increased vote. Although this has dropped back in recent opinion polls. So at a push we are talking 15% of the population voted for change. That means 85% did not vote for any change whatsoever. And bear in mind the Greens and the Shinners have largely incompatible policy platforms (one pro carbon tax the other anti carbon tax)...so even within that 15% they couldn't agree what change they wanted. Change my ar*e.
CtevenSrowder wrote: » What about those who didn't vote FF and FG. If they didn't vote those parties, why would they want them in government, with or without SF? None of this explains how FF or FG are being undemocratic by not speaking to SF anyhow. As I've said, your problem is with our electoral system.
Shefwedfan wrote: » According to everyone on this thread, SF are not talking to them. So you are seemingly the beacon of truth, which is? A. they are talking with them but cant manage to strike a deal with any of them? B. Not talking to them at all?
Randy Archer wrote: » You obviously live in la la land ! Attention span ain’t great either Here’s what Mary Lou also waffled out on 9the February at the RDS “I want us to have a new government for the people ,ideally without Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil in it” And “The best outcome is a government without Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil , that the first thing I went to test” To any half wit, her statement was crystal clear, but the criticism is that the actual seats return at that point did not support her change bs . She tried to form a government to their exclusion, which is fair enough, but then she came back to FF with her tail between her legs whinging . Anyone with some ounce of intelligence knew that a left coalition with head bangers from people before progress and Labour sitting out was never on the cards , and SF and Labournhave always been hostile towards each other Amateurs ! . Had they not being so mathematically retarded ,she would never have made those statements ,knowing full well it would come back to bite her As pointed out multiple times, this so called change that the left are waffling on a bout it is bloody farce . No such change occurred, the results from the most recent elections were inconclusive . Ff and FG combined don’t need that much work to get another government going . Out of the 19 Independents they can secure with relative ease , 10 of them .. once enough carrots are dangled before the Green Party ,they’d be in It ain’t in FFs interest to do any of these deals anyway, and they’d take their risk of going back to the electorate . If they are ****ed in the long term, I agree with the assessment of another poster who made that point (it might have been you) There would be some in FG content enough to go to the opposition benches considering the **** storms that are coming with recession and Brexit Covid is now in the way, which suits ff and FG but there’s going to be another election by the end of the year
Jinglejangle69 wrote: » Many SF supporters here said the numbers aren't there. Now you agree they are?
maccored wrote: » you obviously werent listening. she said people asked for change and didnt want FF or FG - but did that stop her trying to get a government together? No, it didnt. Did it stop people like you talking **** ? no it didnt do that either
maccored wrote: » are you pretending they havent been?
Deleted User wrote: » Its hardly unreasonable if someone is paying tax/prsi here to get back,what they put in?? If they arent paying tax/prsi hard to see any future in this grievence
maccored wrote: » I see you forgot to read my post. as I said, its not who voted for SF but who didnt vote for FF and FG. There - thats the second time I typed that. Maybe you could move that massive anti SF chip you have on your shoulder so you can read better.
CtevenSrowder wrote: » Oh my days! More people would be happy with FF and FG in government considering more people voted for those 2 parties then SF. In the run up to the election both parties were quite insistent that they wouldn't go into government with SF. So, if anything, they are holding on to the promise made to the electorate and as such the people who voted for them. Au contraire, it seems you don't quite get the link between what people want and democracy. SF didn't solely get the largest number of seats, least enough to solely govern. They have no divine right to be in government. No party has to speak to them if they don't want to. There is nothing undemocratic about that. It seems you have a problem more with our electoral system then anything.
Randy Archer wrote: » That’s a funny way of trying to form a government with FF and FG when the very first Statement made by Mary Lou on the Sunday following the count was to specifically exclude FG and FF in their proposed talks with other parties. The problem here was that that statement was made when even a retard could see that was absolutely out of the question numbers wise Kinda hard to take her seriously after that . You could trust her to keep her gob shut during real negotiations in Europe SF came back to FF with their tail between their legs. The time had long past for SF
blanch152 wrote: » Sinn Fein don't need either of them, there are still around 86 TDs available, why aren't they talking to them?
maccored wrote: » i see you arent arguing the fact that SF have tried to form a government with FF and FF refuses to talk to them.
maccored wrote: » ff and fg clearly dont have time for democracy. they dont care that people want change in the country. if you cant understand the link between what people want and democracy then your problem fella, not mine. Its not just people who voted for SF - its the people who didnt vote for FF and FF
CtevenSrowder wrote: » No you stated that FF and FG wouldn't talk to SF and as such had "made it clear they have no time for democracy". I'm wondering if you apply such logic to SF. It's clear you don't. You engage in the usual SF hypocrisy.
TheCitizen wrote: » The other parties would have weighed in if FF or FG agreed to a deal with SF. There was no point otherwise. Of the other parties I think only Labour were the ones coming out with that old "we won't do business with SF" schtick. Anyway the deals been done to suit FF primarily, they will be the senior partner, and there's the quid pro quo that FF backed FG in the Confidence and Supply government. So FG owe them one and FG will also take the gamble that as a "party of government" perhaps they can recover some ground while keeping some of their Ministerial gigs etc.
hmmm wrote: » Oh boo hoo hoo, the big boys won't play with SF? What are SF doing to fix this other than complaining? If it's a coalition, does SF realise that they will need to compromise? Any attempts to address the issues the other parties have with SF? Any attempts to put forward offers to the other parties? Where's this grand coalition of the left, or are they all still refusing to meet each other? How do you expect to be a stable government, when you can't even agree to meet?
maccored wrote: » what are you talking about? Its been stated SF have vanished, havent been trying to set up a govn etc etc. Ive pointed out this untruth to that line of thought. meantime you waffle on about the conservatives. You deserve the Whataboutery Award for that one
CtevenSrowder wrote: » They don't have to. Would you be making the same arguments if SF did likewise with a Conservative government in Britain? I think not.
CtevenSrowder wrote: » No point missed. I'm using your "logic". Maybe you now see how silly it is.
maccored wrote: » off you go - keep missing the point.
CtevenSrowder wrote: » It's farcical. Regardless I thought modern SF did recognise it, just refused to sit in it.
CtevenSrowder wrote: » You inferred that both parties were undemocratic. This is not true. Would it be reckless and ignorance if SF refused to talk to the Conservatives about forming a government? Or is it only ignorance and recklessness when such a thing happens to SF?
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wc.vanillicon.com/v2/c6e76a2e0d85c3808d93c2f75a0c528d.svg)
