The Irish protocol.

Fair enough. I read that wrong. Apologies Pixel.

Certainly some truth to that. The reality lies somewhere in the middle; some people certainly vote DUP because they're awful bigots who don't want a taig about the place, some do so because that is who they've always voted for, and some do because if they don't, then the alternative is a Shinner.

I understand the latter position all too well; I almost exclusively gave SF my first preference vote in Westminster elections when I still lived in the North (because it was more palatable to me than the alternative), even in the STV voting for Stormont, they always got a high preference despite them not representing my views very well at all; they just represented them better than any alternative likely to actually win a seat.

That being said, I wouldn't apply the same logic to Ancap's TUV voting relative unless they're in North Antrim and voting specifically for Jim Allister; the party are only about a few years so there goes the, 'always voted for them' angle.....and they're an electoral mess with awful transfers so unlikely to ever prevent a Shinner getting a seat. Only really leaves one reason to vote TUV

I was in the middle of adding an edit to my previous post when you replied, but rather than muddy the picture with editing the post you've quoted, I'll clarify what I meant in response go you directly.

Firstly, to be clear ANYONE can vote how they want, I wouldn't dream of telling anyone how to vote or indeed how they shouldn't vote.

I was explaining that I can entirely understand the reason that those who don't support the DUP vote for them (because they're the most likely option to prevent a SF alternative), I can understand how someone can vote for the DUP because they've always voted that way and don't give it much consideration. I can also understand the voting patterns from the other side favouring SF, despite not supporting them given that I did so myself for many years.

My phrasing was clumsy, and by no means meant to imply that I had any right to tell your family how to vote but more trying to say that while I can understand why someone would vote DUP or SF without the party necessarily being representative of how that person actually thinks and acts in every day life, outside of North Antrim's Jim Allister, it doesn't apply to voting TUV.

Because they're a pretty new party, the, 'I always voted for them' logic is out the window. Because they're transfer toxic and only have one MLA, they're more likely to get a Shinner in by splitting the Unionist vote than prevent it, so the, 'it is a vote against SF' logic is out the window too.

With that considered, it is entirely reasonable to suppose that someone outside North Antrim voting for TUV does so because they support what that party represents, whereas I've shown that doesn't necessarily apply to SF or the DUP. Let's be honest, the TUV is hardly a broad house when it comes to opinions and political positions; they largely represent highly socially conservative politics, and an outright dislike of anything Irish. While I'm sure there are exceptions, I can't think of a single reason for someone who is neither highly socially conservative nor anti-Irish to vote for them. That doesn't give me a right to say that people CAN'T vote for them, but it certainly provides some indication that person's values would substantially differ from mine in a way that voting for some other parties wouldn't.

TUV represent a specific niche extreme form of Unionism.....discussing specifically voting for them is by no means attempting to paint Unionism with a broad brush. Much like critically considering why people who vote for Saoradh do so would hardly be painting Nationalists with a broad brush.

Nowhere have I at any point stated that Unionism is invalid, nor have I argued for a hegemonistic Nationalist dominance over anyone in a United Ireland, so I think you're stretching things for a bit of a strawman there. Nor does dragging Francie's position in to push back against mine help you; my post specifically disagreed with Francie as well.

What kind of twisted logic is that?

SF are not asking the electorate to support Liam Adams.

The DUP asked their voters to endorse their deployment of a veto and the TUV never shut up about not nominating a SF FM.

You vote for them you own that.

"quoting the final clause in a long sentence, out of context to score a point of the poster."

Nah, that doesn't happen on the belligerent exclusionary nationalist side of the debate.

I am taking two points from this discussion, firstly, both Sinn Fein and DUP are extremely toxic to the other side. This has been clearly evident to me for quite a while and while some like downcow and FrancieBrady from opposite sides of the debate will try and deny one or other, that only copperfastens the belief around that.

Secondly, and this is the optimistic bit. It seems that there is a belief, maybe not shared but expressed in different ways, that some people are not DUP supporters but voted for them to keep SF out, and that some people are not SF supporters but voted for them to see a nationalist FM. One of the positive outcomes of a SF FM would be to see that boil burst and the toxic material flow away. Those voters who don't really support SF or DUP would realise that a nationalist FM is not such a big deal in the future and go back to voting for SDLP, Greens, Alliance, PBP and UUP. That would take an awful lot of heat out of the discussions and diminish the influence of the toxic sectarians.

Ah do the usual thing that happens here. Introduce something that wasn't mentioned and have a rant about it.

I don't 'hate' anyone.

All I said was, if you are voting for a party whose primary campaign was a 'veto' then you own that veto.

They had a choice to vote for a Unionist party that had another option.

Ah do the usual thing that happens here. Introduce something that wasn't mentioned and have a rant about it. Nonsensical twisting of my point to try and defend the belligerent exclusionary nationalist party.

My point is about understanding why people vote a certain way - to stop SF or to create a nationalist FM - and to conclude that once a nationalist FM has actually happened, those two reasons for voting fade away, and that could well lead to a further drop in support for both SF and DUP, which in my opinion, is a good thing.

Nothing in that about demeaning voters, that interpretation is all in your head.

Funny, I thought your point was to hope people voted for who you wanted them to vote for.

Nobody has a problem owning why they vote for SF. They know where SF have come from and don’t have to apologise to you.

Time the DUP voters and those who apologise for those voters did the same. Own what they have endorsed and stop trying to excuse.

Would you agree that Ian Paisley, in speeches and actions in attacking democratic activists was also a terrorist?

And if you do agree, is that not another reasom not to vote for the DUP ?

This conversation started with you pondering why your relatives have an incoherent kneejerk reaction to the Protocol and the situation they find themselves in.

Your answer to an examination of that seems to be 'but Nationalists.....'.

Imagine if somebody did that when Nationalists motives/reasons are examined?

There are reasons your relatives react the way they do and they are not excused by the actions of others,

Evidence for what?

You set the goalposts by asking for 'evidence'. Simple question, what is it you are looking evidence for?