There are shades within all 'isms' blanch. And not everyone in any one of those 'isms' gets it right all the time. Political reality.
Well tell me now, are SDLP in or out of your favour. It seems to me that you pick and choose. When the sectarian head count is needed, SDLP are in, when SF and the PIRA are being criticised, SDLP are out. It must be difficult keeping track.
You brought the 'sectarian headcount' in, you sort out your own mess.
SDLP compete with SF for votes as do the Alliance. They haven't been able to make inroads, is what I said. As well as it being good that the pro-protocol vote was holding up.
You leapt in comparing Unionism against ONE nationalist party. The bad one in your opinion. Your baby to support that.
Christ, you'll talk any aul nonsense.
Care to point out the vast swathes of Republicans criticising Hume on here by the way?
I mean Alliance, I think any swings to TUV will very rapidly fall away due to lack of candidates unless we get significant defectation and they become DUP by proxy.
If thy materialise at all. Wouldn't be the first time TUV polled way ahead of how they finished up.
I certainly am not aware of any "diehards, republicans" trying to deny the rights of SDLP voters to identify as nationalist balnch152, (do you have any links to them doing so?) and by that method, are you now considering yourself as a "diehard republican" that you've "given up on them" too?
What about people who voted, and continue to vote for the SDLP for years now, as their nationalist policies are the ones they mostly identify with? How do you think they might feel if they were to wonder info this forum, and read this thread where an anonymous user has decided to dismiss any notion of them or the party they voted for as a nationalist party?
One can only assume you're doing so to get a rise out of those folk, or are deliberately trying to antagonise those who may identify as nationalist and republican, by deliberately refusing to factor all the numbers in when coming up with your % despite the poll results being there for all to see.
That's certainly an odd little hobby you have if so.
Either that or he made a genuine mistake and is furiously backtracking rather than acknowledging it.
You'd imagine a quick mea culpa and move on, but nope, instead we get the, "dig up, stupid" act.
Not going to dig for posts, but there are thousands of them critical of Hume and Mallon on here from "republicans".
Thousands of posts critical of the Shinners too. Doesn't make them non-nationalists or non-republicans blanch.
I'm sure there are....how many are there disowning them and claiming SDLP aren't a Nationalist/Republican party; the other half of your claim.
Are you suggesting that to support a political party or a political ethos, one must be unwavering in their support and never criticise? Sounding more like a Shinner yourself there....
Look, once again, not going down the rabbit-hole of which poster said what and when, the fixation with other posters that some around here hold, just drags the discussion away from the issues.
The issue here is that the nationalist minority shows no sign of catching up on the unionist minority as both leak voters and young people to the ranks of those who just don't really care about constitutional issues in the short to medium-term, if at all. You could call it the emergence of a passive unionism, but I think that is overplaying it, more just status-quo types.
It wasn't a poll on 'the constitutional' issue.
It was a poll on who you are going to vote for in the upcoming elections.
Nobody is 'leaking votes' bar the DUP and Alliance.
Being called on your BS isn't a rabbit hole, Blanch. Retreating behind accusations of going down rabbit holes is fairly low grade stuff when YOU introduced the idea, YOU made a mess of it, YOU tried to defend it with your tried and trusted, 'blame everyone else' nonsense....and finally, when your position became so self evidently flawed that even you couldn't hold to it, you start moaning about it being off topic.
If it was off topic, why did you suggest that Republicans had disowned the SDLP and claimed they weren't a Nationalist party? How am I the one going down a rabbit hole by simply asking you to back up your BS?
All of this to try spare your blushes because you made a mistake reading a poll.....would've been much less embarrassing if you'd just acknowledged it in the first place.
PSNI lacks ‘credibility’ in South Armagh as report calls for urgent reforms (irishexaminer.com)
who wants to
Disarm the police
Reduce police numbers
Make them a more visible target
Hide there memorials to murdered friends and co workers
Impose a new language on them
Ignore and marginalize the opinions of those on the ground
Make the boarder unpoliceable and ineffective
So who benefits for a weak and ineffective police service in South Armagh ? smugglers ? good republicans ? a party who maintains a strangle hold on the community's.
time and again we see the population uncooperative with the police through fear of sf and their thugs
Good call Mike..
What are you on about?
De-militarisation of border areas is in line with agreements stemming from the GFA.
Police chiefs over egging the security situation by showing a heavily militarised police force in a photo was what caused this review.
A riposte to O'Toole who tries to do what some here attempt. The partitionist Achilles heel, as it were.
the opinions of a sf propagandist are not really worth using as a source ........
Mícheál Mac Donncha - Wikipedia
Arthur Griffith, Sinn Féin and Fine Gael | An Phoblacht
Also that wasn't a O Toole article
It's not being used as a 'source'.
Can you argue against the points he made?
Where did you pull that out of? Impose a language through democratic process? Give over. You're just having a rant.
once again your understanding of the word source seems to be lacking some what 😂
yes i can and have , but how would that effect the understanding of the online army ?
the internet shebean , its full of useful information
A 'source' for what?
You either have an argument against what he says or you don't.
Or the boy,Mike doesn’t think it’s worth dancing on the head of a pin to refute a propagandist.
There is a third choice.
..or Mike hasn't the courage of his convictions because they are built on shaky ground? 4 choices Brendi, depending where you are standing.
P.S. What distinguishes O'Toole's article from the letter in a 'propaganda' context? Far as I can see the letter writer doesn't tell one word of a lie in expressing his view. Would welcome somebody pointing it out if he has. (I'll probably be deploying option four to that challenge)
*I'm noticing the 'rabbithole' 'head of a pin' cry a lot among a certain cohort here when arguments run aground.
are you accusing me of being a racist ?
there is no doubting what sf stand for .....its sf in case you struggled there
your being rude francie ,
just because im not wiling to allow murder criminality and gansterism run rampant you object to me having an opinion ?
again the link i posted is not a O Toole article
your letter writer is a party propagandist true ? or false ?
i have no idea of the politics or allegiance of the person who wrote the article you tried to drag into the thread
I have no idea who he is.
The contents of his letter stand on their own and I see not a word of a lie in it.
Now have you a counter argument or not?
you have no idea who the letter writer is ? really that sounds unlikely
i ve posted this already but just for you.
Mícheál Mac Donncha (born Michael McConkey)[1] is an Irish Sinn Féin politician who served as the Lord Mayor of Dublin from 2017 to 2018. He has been a Dublin City Councillor since 2014.[2]
obviously him being a party propagandist is relevant you how you view his letter isnt it ?
