FrancieBrady wrote: » What does getting 20% of the vote say about how the other 80% of the electorate views you? Maybe the other 80% think you are tired being trustworthy and competent and need a wee holiday?
Mortelaro wrote: » The issue with that analysis is 2 fold: 1. More than 50% of the electorate voted for T.D's that can do business with FG 2.can the same be said for Sinn Féin ? FF FG ,labour, A good share of independents shun them That's why SF cannot have a Taoiseach at this time
What does getting 20% of the vote say about how the other 80% of the electorate views you?
FrancieBrady wrote: » Why are you making this about Sinn Fein? I'll ask you again.
Mortelaro wrote: » Its pretty simple,your premise in the question is wrong It lacks context Your premise implies 80% are implacably opposed to FG being in government when it couldn't be farther from the truth just as there arent 96% opposed to the Soc Dems being in there or labour Sinn Féin on the other hand.... It ain't rocket science as to which is the better position to be in A party with multiple options or a party with none
FrancieBrady wrote: » What data are you basing that on? 80% didn't vote for FG to be in government. 76% didn't vote for SF to be in government.
Mortelaro wrote: » Therein lies your analytical problem Let's pose the question properly to include context again Which party is in the better position, the one with several options to be in government or the one with none?
Mortelaro wrote: » When all other attempts at government formation are exhausted, then,we are at a last resort which is what FG told their voters pre election they'd explore and only at that point So colour it up whatever way you like you are factually wrong again
Mortelaro wrote: » That of course is your opinion Regarding Sinn Féin,unfortunately for them,they had/have realistically 'no way in' as too many elected T.D's and by extension a majority of the public don't trust them
FrancieBrady wrote: » Now you want to change the question to get the answer that doesn't hurt your hyper sensitivity? Gas!
Bowie wrote: » It's your opinion based on your error. Varadkar said they relished going into opposition and told FF that same thing twice. They changed their mind. Factually speaking.
Cheers. Gymnastics aside you could say the public don't trust SF, but trust FF and FG even less. SF didn't have the candidates, what's FG's excuse? Besides the obvious electorate going elsewhere of course.
Fann Linn wrote: » Games over now for SF in forming a govt. However, its up to FF/FG and whoever to get in and work their magic. For if it goes pear shaped, SF are sitting in the best position to gain advantage next time around.
IAMAMORON wrote: » I think the Taoiseach has said it on more than one occasion, in fact he said it before and after the elections. When asked about government with Sinn Féin he has consistently sighted the intransigence based on Sinn Féin's economic policy and on their proposed amendments to the Criminal Justice system, for starters. I think this is what has Shinners going all Rumpelstiltskin on it most. They want the reason being the RA, but the Taoiseach, while not wholeheartedly disagreeing with this, has consistently said it is their garbage unworkable policies that he fears the most. He is right as well. Their domestic policies are pie ball. Totally unworkable and unrealistic. Sure Sinn Féin had no intention of getting into government before the election. If they had they would have fielded 40 more candidates. O'Snodaigh battered his quota 2 times over, how they didn't envisage this happening really indicates how naïve they were going into the election.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Bit of a biased read there. They hadn't done well in the locals and decided that they would try to hold their own. There is no suggestion (only tired old taunts) that they had 'no intention of going into government'.i mean what are these white haired bearded old men (who apparently have a master cunning plan for SF) thinking? Do they want to take over the country or not?
Bowie wrote: » There are numerous advantages to being in government, albeit a caretaker one. When FG brought FF to the table under the 'stability' con it meant everything MM said got column lines. Anytime government did anything FF were asked for an opinion. This had the mutual interest of FF/FG not wanting another party getting as much attention be it SF or whomever. Now is no different. With all eyes on FF/FG and the Greens. Out of sight out of mind for SF/PBP/SD etc. From 'relishing' going into opposition having been humiliated in the election, likely FG are hoping the electorate will become jaded by the next election and even as toothless caretakers they get the attention. Any cobbled together government will prolong this. Sadly it looks like a rinse and repeat with the Greens. Falling into the 'better in than out' junior partner trap. They'll be eaten alive.
Mortelaro wrote: » Au contraire,It is you who is wrong as a last resort means when all other options are jaded
Mortelaro wrote: » If SF had the candidates, they would have gained more seats,no question but other left parties would have lost loads You'd still have the same problem, not enough elected to prevent others forming a government including FG
IAMAMORON wrote: » They could care less Francie, as long as they are shifting their diesel and taxing shady business folk they are not fussed. The last thing they need is more spotlight on them at this point, which is probably coming anyway. The adverse effect of the Sinn Féin surge will be the heightened scrutiny around their stakeholders. They will have more trouble burying their reputation than they will have burying their contraband.:)
RandomViewer wrote: » FF councillors have written to MM saying they do not a prove of FG our the Vegetables, Grassroots threatenening to leave party, expect similar from FG councillors, their rural supporters will not want Veggies either
FrancieBrady wrote: » But surely the most effective way to do that is not to be getting the highest share of the vote? I mean, if SF run more candidates next time around, that would blow your fanciful theory out of the water? You cannot seriously posit the above after watching how SF fight for every last vote they can get and the work they do locally to achieve that. Ridiculous and not grounded in any reality I know tbh.
IAMAMORON wrote: » Or getting their heavies to follow TD's home at night? Try explaining that one to the millennials, see how it sits.
FrancieBrady wrote: » The internet equivalent of 'Squirrel!' If you are gonna come up with theory's try grounding them in actual reality. The idea a party 'had no intention of going into an election' is just biased, lazy spoof.
IAMAMORON wrote: » Now you are ranting and changing the subject Francie. Are you denying the Spy ring so? What about the party whip's call for the abolition of the SCC?
FrancieBrady wrote: » Changing the subject? Here is what I said when you posited your fanciful unbacked up theory that they had 'no intention of going into government'.https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=113353144&postcount=5296 I think somebody else is trying to 'change the subject'.
IAMAMORON wrote: » Well in fairness I answered that too. I said that a lot of the diesel smuggling and racketeering will be open to more public scrutiny now. Especially from the millennials. I mean given the GFA is over 20 years old now there should be no need for such fundraising? I mean why won't they share the wealth and build a few houses with the profits like the rest of country is trying to do? Help the homeless like? Or maybe improve working conditions for the "working class"?
FrancieBrady wrote: » You can no doubt prove that SF are profiting from the proceeds of such activity? Fire away. If a random poster on boards.ie know they are doing this, why would more 'public scrutiny' bother them? *None of your fabulous shiny 'theories add up. If you apply bog standard common sense that is.
Bowie wrote: » Clare Daly and that whole drunk driving thing or Paul Murphy having his home raided at dawn or the Garda giving the same false 'evidence' at his trial or Tulsa accidentally putting Garda McCabe down as a child molester? Or if you're talking further back Flanagan's father and his hatred of the Jews? be specific :rolleyes:
Bowie wrote: » Clare Daly and that whole drunk driving thing or Paul Murphy having his home raided at dawn or the Garda giving the same false 'evidence' at his trial or Tusla accidentally putting Garda McCabe down as a child molester? Can you be specific? Or if you're talking further back Flanagan's father and his hatred of the Jews? be specific.
IAMAMORON wrote: » So no comment on the spy ring then?