Sinn Fein and how do they form a government dilemma

There is no question in your post.

You claimed 50-6o cases - no back up for that yet.

You claimed ‘loads’ of expulsions. There were 5 mentioned in the article, a number of them over the same incident.

All parties have expelled members, there is nothing particularly unusual in that. Haven’t they just let Bertie back into FF?

prove he was in the IRA and sure he'll lose - surely? Shouldn't be that hard to prove he was in the IRA apparently. Unless of course that cant be proved. but then that'd be completely against the justice system to be accusing someone of something you cant prove.

"Again, simply looking through their recent posts on the topic would show you are incorrect....again."

I have read your links. None concern rsf involving itself in a party political dispute.

What is being argued here is some journalists criticising the right of someone going to court to vindicate their good name. They seem to believe that , as journalists, they must be able to write whatever they like , without consequences. I have no idea what the IR article said about Chris Andrews TD. But, since he threatened to sue, there has been a relentless media campaign, now including the rsf, to stop that case. I would have more faith in our courts system than I do in the 'press'. Just look at what the 'press' have managed to do in both the US and UK to learn why they must be held to account. Whether the IT were right or Andrews is right, I see nothing wrong with the matter being decided by our courts and not by the media.

But i find it extraordinary that the rsf wants to involve itself in this in Ireland, a country the rsf itself rank as second in the world for press freedom, when they are not criticising similar cases in other jurisdictions.

1. You say no bullying happens, I provide multiple reports it does, you ignore those. No I haven't
2. You say nobody was expelled for bullying, I provide reports that multiple people have been, you ignore those. I questioned your use of 'loads' expelled and reminded you that all parties expel members
3. You demand I answer your questions, yet ignore any put to you. I asked you to re-ask your question, you haven't as yet
4. You gaslight every piece of evidence put to you. Allegations are NOT evidence, I have reminded you no court or tribunal have found anyone guilty of bullying to the extent alleged. Pretending allegations are evidence would be closer to 'gaslighting' tbh.
5. I gave you reports of approx 25 people involved in bullying, harassment and psychological warfare within SF, with multiple accounts from former SF members, you ignore it all. No I don't. What you are ;giving' are allegations made by former members of the party who may or may not have agendas. None of these allegations are accompanied by any evidence.

I have asked for that evidence. You have not provided any. Again an allegation is NOT evidence, if it was imagine the round up of the guilty we would have to do across the political spectrum.

Does 'gaslighting' mean anyone with a different opinion answering you back or RSF?

Are people supposed to fall prostrate in front of what are 'allegations' and differing opinion?

What do you mean?

I think you just gave all the explanation necessary. You are just using an edgy buzzword or don't understand the word to begin with.

The mad thing is their voter base would be far younger than either FG or FF, these are the exact people who need to have the pension time bomb explained to them and who can understand its future impacts on their lives. IE being honest and telling people in their 20s and 30s that there will be no state pension for them and to start prepping for it is far easier than telling people in their 50s. However in saying that their voter base is also far less financially literate or educated so doing so is going to be a tricky task and seemingly they have decided as usual to just take the populist and therefore easy way out.

Are you making this up? Can you show us where SF have said this?

Plus, can you explain why the government have not changed the pension age if they believe it should be 67 to defuse this 'timebomb'?

Whatever.

Funny you get shy when challenged. You just ignore challenges to your proclamations. Like these for instance where I addressed your 'questions':

How many manifestos have been met in governments since the foundation of the state would you say?

I expect SF to meet as many as previous governments and to run the state.

If they are just the same as FG FF then they will not get a vote from me next time out.

Nobody is assured of my vote in other words.

Do you know why FF FG and the Greens have not made the retirement age 67 if we have a ticking timebomb?