The decline of SF?

The point that was made was that SF attracts far more of the people who believe such rubbish than any other party, because SF plays up to that agenda. The facts back up that opinion. Your response is deflective nonsense and doesn't in any meaningful way refute the point made. It would get zero points in a primary school debating competition.

38% for Q1 and 25% for Q2.

You avoiding the question?
How did FG and FF 'harvest' and keep happy their percentages of conspiracy believers?

Had you looked with an unjaundiced eye you would see that survey shows they all have a percentage who believe this stuff.

Therefore the only time it becomes a major problem is when it influences party policy or actions and I don't see that happening in any of the major parties.

This thread is dredging the barrel for ansty tat titting again.

When the elections called SF will solidify and grow in the polls and will certainly improve on 2020.

Voters will do different things in polling booths than what they were asked about 6 months earlier when confused and riled up by racists,it concentrates minds.

SF will reel in the lapsed shinners.

That is my opinion on what will happen.

There are questions for all obviously, if you are going to start asking questions.

I have and my answer is, if these theories begin to manifest themselves in policy then it is time to worry. Across all parties I would imagine they are beliefs held mostly by the young and that would explain why it is higher in SF, given they attract a younger vote during the period.

What questions?
And why would you not ask them of a party that has 51% of it's supporters giving the same answer in one instance?
Or 47% in the case of the party you vote for?

I know why only one party is answerable, but you'll never admit to it.

Ever meet any of the 'bald lads' colleagues on the council locally? Hughie 'Gimme loads of sterling' and your man that fancied himself with a broken glass? You'll find all sorts in political parties would be my anecdotal experience.

Charlie Flanagan was their biggest vote getter.

I compare parties before I vote for them. Isn’t what you and the survey are doing ‘comparing’?
Crimnals? The major parties all had their share.

Conspiracy theorists, they all have their share particularly among their younger support. And at the time of the survey SF had the majority of the you g’s support.

Eejits? Well now I think they all certainly have a share of them too.

The 'abstentions' tells you all you need to know. Support for Gemma withdrew gradually as it became apparent how far she was going on the conspiracy trail. She still had some currency in journalism at that time. Her investigative journalism blew the lid of abuse in a Dublin Rugby school in 2018 for instance. Not denying it disappeared fairly quickly from that time on but her credibility didn't disappear overnight.

SF like to keep it in the family

As do your party blanch. Catherine Martin and her husband?

Pippa Hackett , co-opted her hubbie into her seat, her son tried to get into the family biz too.
Not to mention FG, Olwyn Enright, daughter of Senator T. Enwright and married to TD Joe McHugh.

Then you have the Kitts, and the Lenihan family dynasty? Des O'Malley and his daughter? Cathal Coughlan and his daughter Mary? The Harte and Blaney dynasties?

On it goes but SF are 'exceptional' as per usual.

I've seen some of his hate stuff on Twitter, seems obsessed with immigration. He is one of the "I'm not a racist, but…." crowd.

"Because of the UK's Rwanda Bill over 80% of so-called Asylum Seekers are now coming here from the UK, a safe country. We can refuse these asylum applicants, the vast majority are economic migrants and stop putting them up in hotels with food and free medical cards. Insanity."

This is one of his tweets from earlier this year. Dog-whistling to the racists. Clear example of the "I'm not a racist, but…" Could also be classified as one of the "I'm not far-right, but……."

No need to deflect to what others are saying, whether that be councillors, TDs or Ministers. The question is whether, you, as a SF supporter and apologist, are happy with this type of dog-whistling. If you have no problem with it, fair enough, but you wouldn't see this type of stuff from real left-wing parties like Labour, SDs or the Greens.

If we’re gonna judge political party offerings on the antics of councillors we’d have hours of fun.
Monaghan alone would offer some fun on it’s own.

You are wrong, the tweet is a clear example of dog-whistling. It is making claims that are untrue and playing to the gallery.

Firstly, the 80% figure is based on the numbers presenting for the first time at the International Protection Office, rather than at ports and airports (Micheal Martin explained this but it wasn't listened to). The Irish Refugee Council says that this does not mean that they have all entered via the UK or that they stayed any length in the UK.

Secondly, the tweet gives the impression that "we can refuse these asylum applicants" as if that is something that we are not doing. We are refusing asylum applicants, but only after due process as required under our international obligations. We could speed up the refusal process with more resources at huge expense, but we cannot refuse them on entry as the tweet implies.

Thirdly, the claim is made, with zero evidence, that the vast majority are economic migrants. That SF troll tweeting it has no access to any data to verify that claim.

Fourthly, given that people are having to live in tents his claim that we are "putting them up in hotels with food" is also another dog-whistling untruth.

The tweet could easily have come from a representative of II.

what are you talking about? Brian's married to Caroline. Need a hand removing that foot from your mouth?