Green Party wish list.

KyussB · 04-07-2020 6:31am

efanton wrote: »

You miss the one single point that destroys your argument.
Government in the EU no longer print money

Who do governments borrow from?

They borrow from banks and financial institutions.

These are businesses and every loan they give is a business decision.
So to try argue that government borrowing has nothing to do with business is not only stupid but totally disingenuous.

The banks might find it convenient to lend money to governments at the moment, but what will they say to a country which is deeply in debt to a dangerous degree if there is a significant worldwide recession or another banking collapse?
While it might be possible to borrow huge amounts of money at present, it might not be possible to borrow the same amount in 5 or 10 years time. If the government cant borrow the same amount that's as good as having to pay a enormous lump sum that would make the austerity after the banking crisis look like a picnic.

The discussion has never been about whether or not governments print money. That is a distinguishing feature of non-Eurozone countries - but it is not the determinant of whether or not government finances function like household/business finances.

Again, I ask:
Do you know any business or household that's able to tax an entire economy (which keeps growing in size permanently) to back paying its debts, and which typically rolls over its debts forever, with a long-term permanently increasing stock of debt (not the same as percentage relative to GDP)?

There is no household or business whose finances function like a governments finances - not even Eurozone countries.

Your post again assumes that a large stock of Public Debt = "in debt to a dangerous degree" - which is fallacious, as it is not the size of the stock of Public Debt which determines debt sustainability, it is the composition of that debt - the interest rate, the maturities, and what is done with the money itself even.

A worldwide recession = low to negative interest rates = readily available money for governments, through issuing government bonds...

Borrowing today isn't a requirement to borrow tomorrow, or whenever interest rates are higher...it's fallacious reasoning to forego maximizing GDP today, for fear of a half-a-decade-away-at-least rise in interest rates - especially because we can reduce our Public Debt vs GDP faster by then, through maximizing GDP...

KyussB · 04-07-2020 6:46am

Tell me how wrote: »

I can think of at least 7 things which negates the argument for printing money as is being advocated before the fact that it is not governments which print it.

1 - It runs counter to fiscal responsibility to do so.
2 - It would cause inflation.
3 - It would ensure green projects would increase dramatically in cost.
4 - The electorate would not give any government a mandate to borrow in this manner
5 - If a government were to borrow in this manner, there would be a public outcry to fund some or all of the following areas before spending it on green projects.Housing/Healthcare/Childcare/Education
6 - It would undermine the responsibility people feel to make mortgage and loan repayments.
7 - It would increase the potential for a future financial crash.

That is not what is being advocated, point to any post I've made where I advocate that...

That makes all 7 points in your post, the equivalent of loaded questions. Even in that context, your statements are all wrong:
1: Balanced budgets are not 'fiscal responsibility', because government finances do not function like business/household finances.
2: Inflation outside of resource constraints, only occurs when an economy is at Full Output, i.e. when GDP is maximized and the economy is at Full Employment. Nobody advocates spending past that point (regardless of the means of spending...) - which means no position results in excessive inflation.

3: There is no circumstance where Green projects increase in cost - unless you mean the differene between doing them vs not doing them at all...
4: "Borrow in this manner" - what are you even on about, borrowing or printing? The ECB already facilitates our borrowing by buying our government bonds on the secondary market...A huge amount of the electorate is against austerity and for net government spending.

5: "In this manner" again, when what I'm advocating is just borowing the way government already is borrowing...We can fund all of those things at exactly the same time as Green projects, and we should, there are multiple crises due to lack of funding...

6: If people don't make mortgage or loan payments, they lose their home, and they lose whatever collateral they've pledged on other loans. Governments issue bonds all the time (which btw is all I've been arguing...), and so there is very much direct proof that you are wrong here.

7: High Private Debt levels cause financial crises - keeping GDP maximized with the help of Public Debt, reduces the pressure placed on Private Debt for sourcing the money needed to keep GDP maximized - which inherently makes financial crises less likely. Fiscal surpluses do the opposite, they create a greater reliance on Private Debt to keep GDP ticking along - which increases the likelihood of a financial crisis - so you have fiscal responsibility BACKWARDS...

It rather seems that you haven't read a single thing I've posted in the thread, you've just gone by assuming based on what others have said. Read what I have actually said, instead of wasting time/space in the thread, making me reply to such shite.

Tell me how wrote: »

I find it very depressing that the conversation on any positive action for the environment on Boards is pretty much limited to such a magical pipe dream.

What I find depressing is that you have a genuine desire to see action on Green policies - yet you won't do even the minimum amount of learning about macroeconomics, to see that austerity/budget-balancing is almost universally agreed as bad policy among macroeconomists (even among ones I disagree with vehemently on other issues...) - yet you do not see that this is the single determining issue, on whether or not Green policies get enacted at a big enough scale!

This is literally the single most important issue in all of green politics - it is the CORE thing determining whether or not action to stop climate change, will ever be big enough - and you hold the position which guarantees that even among those who agree something should be done, that we should not do enough...(solely because of a poor understanding of macroeconomics)

efanton · 04-07-2020 1:24pm

KyussB wrote: »

The discussion has never been about whether or not governments print money. That is a distinguishing feature of non-Eurozone countries - but it is not the determinant of whether or not government finances function like household/business finances.

Again, I ask:
Do you know any business or household that's able to tax an entire economy (which keeps growing in size permanently) to back paying its debts, and which typically rolls over its debts forever, with a long-term permanently increasing stock of debt (not the same as percentage relative to GDP)?

There is no household or business whose finances function like a governments finances - not even Eurozone countries.

Your post again assumes that a large stock of Public Debt = "in debt to a dangerous degree" - which is fallacious, as it is not the size of the stock of Public Debt which determines debt sustainability, it is the composition of that debt - the interest rate, the maturities, and what is done with the money itself even.

A worldwide recession = low to negative interest rates = readily available money for governments, through issuing government bonds...

Borrowing today isn't a requirement to borrow tomorrow, or whenever interest rates are higher...it's fallacious reasoning to forego maximizing GDP today, for fear of a half-a-decade-away-at-least rise in interest rates - especially because we can reduce our Public Debt vs GDP faster by then, through maximizing GDP...

You're an idiot if you cant read and understand the point I made.

Its banks and financial institutions that lend money to governments.
These are businesses.
Any decision they make is a business decision.
do you understand that?

It doesnt matter how a government manages it lending and spending. It is always going to be dependent on a business decision, just not their business decision.

What is this nonsense about GDP? do you understand what it is ?
Gross Domestic Product has nothing whatsoever to do with debt.
It is the total amount spent on goods or services within a country NOT by a county or government.
Every government that has ever existed has tried to maximise GDP.

A government can only roll over its debt if a lender is prepared to lend the same amount again. Do you understand that?

Bass Reeves · 04-07-2020 1:41pm

efanton wrote: »

You're an idiot if you cant read and understand the point I made.

Its banks and financial institutions that lend money to governments.
These are businesses.
Any decision they make is a business decision.
do you understand that?

It doesnt matter how a government manages it lending and spending. It is always going to be dependent on a business decision, just not their business decision.

What is this nonsense about GDP? do you understand what it is ?
Gross Domestic Product has nothing whatsoever to do with debt.
It is the total amount spent on goods or services within a country NOT by a county or government.
Every government that has ever existed has tried to maximise GDP.

A government can only roll over its debt if a lender is prepared to lend the same amount again. Do you understand that?

I do not know why you try to debate the point with him. He has a fixation on the magic money from the magic monkey tree. Banks, business institutions all he has is this idea that by using the magic money from the magic monkey tree we can live in a utopian society.

These projects have tried and failed. He believed that we can increase wages and hire lads to pick strawberries at 15 euro/ hour. I just gave up trying to debate his fixation of this magic money from the magic monkey tree.

KyussB · 04-07-2020 1:45pm

efanton wrote: »

You're an idiot if you cant read and understand the point I made.

Its banks and financial institutions that lend money to governments.
These are businesses.
Any decision they make is a business decision.
do you understand that?

It doesnt matter how a government manages it lending and spending. It is always going to be dependent on a business decision, just not their business decision.

What is this nonsense about GDP? do you understand what it is ?
Gross Domestic Product has nothing whatsoever to do with debt.
It is the total amount spent on goods or services within a country NOT by a county or government.
Every government that has ever existed has tried to maximise GDP.

A government can only roll over its debt if a lender is prepared to lend the same amount again. Do you understand that?

I understand exactly what you are saying, and you are wrong - as I have detailed (without resorting to personal insults...) in my arguments.

You on the other hand, don't understand fundamental/basic things about what I have said: Such that I have NOT advocated money printing anywhere in this discussion...

It doesn't matter what reasoning businesses use in purchasing government bonds - for these reasons I have to repeat to you again, government finances do not work like household/business finances:
Do you know any business or household that's able to tax an entire economy (which keeps growing in size permanently) to back paying its debts, and which typically rolls over its debts forever, with a long-term permanently increasing stock of debt (not the same as percentage relative to GDP)?

As you know, the discussion of debt sustainability frequently revolves around Public Debt vs GDP - the sustainability of the economy and of Public Debt is best achieved through maximizing GDP - maximizing GDP requires persistent Full Employment. Austerity/budget-balancing governments do the opposite of maximizing GDP, they strangle GDP in order to reduce Public Debt vs GDP, when instead GDP must be maximized to reduce Public Debt vs GDP.

Whether or not a government has to roll over a particular set of bonds in the first place, depends on the structure of the bonds (their interest rate, their maturity), and the performance (GDP...) of the economy - and whether rolling over that set of bonds would be burdensome, further depends on macroeconomic conditions like the interest rate, the rate of inflation, and the method used to roll over the bonds. The macroeconomics of government bonds isn't as simple as "but high interest rates...at some indeterminate point the future..."

Do you understand that we will have low-to-negative interest rates, for perhaps most of a decade? That the potential for high interest rates - and thus rollover risk due to that - is about zero for at least that amount of time? That this provides the country with more than enough time, to end up with Public Debt vs GDP lower than 6 months ago - while keeping the economy at Full Employment through that whole time?

KyussB · 04-07-2020 1:50pm

Bass Reeves wrote: »

I do not know why you try to debate the point with him. He has a fixation on the magic money from the magic monkey tree. Banks, business institutions all he has is this idea that by using the magic money from the magic monkey tree we can live in a utopian society.

These projects have tried and failed. He believed that we can increase wages and hire lads to pick strawberries at 15 euro/ hour. I just gave up trying to debate his fixation of this magic money from the magic monkey tree.

Other posters seem to think that by this, you mean I am advocating printing money. Except I have not advocated anything like that in the thread. Neither have I said that about strawberry picking.

So a very simple question for you: Are you saying I am advocating printing money?

You seem to be resorting to deliberately lying about what I've been saying in the thread - and you refuse to explain what the above term is meant to mean, if that is not what you're implying by it. You are not removing yourself from debating at all, you are persisting in lying about what I have advocated.

efanton · 04-07-2020 1:51pm

Bass Reeves wrote: »

I do not know why you try to debate the point with him. He has a fixation on the magic money from the magic monkey tree. Banks, business institutions all he has is this idea that by using the magic money from the magic monkey tree we can live in a utopian society.

These projects have tried and failed. He believed that we can increase wages and hire lads to pick strawberries at 15 euro/ hour. I just gave up trying to debate his fixation of this magic money from the magic monkey tree.

His point would be valid if we could guarantee that the banks and financial institutions would lend what ever a government wants, when it wants.
There is no such guarantee.

That is why his whole idea is pointless. It simply would be totally irresponsible for a government to exceed its borrowing limits unless it had a cast iron guarantee that they could borrow what they want when they want.
Until KyussB can prove beyond doubt that banks and financial institutions will lend whatever amount a government want when it wants his whole theory collapses into nothing.

KyussB · 04-07-2020 1:58pm

There are no borrowing limits. They are suspended. In a negative interest rate environment, with QE, banking/financial institutions will lend to governments at close to the interest rate, with some spread for profits - giving us not only low interest rate bonds, but often negative interest rate bonds...

If you understand anything about why we have negative interest rates, why we have QE, and why the entire Eurozone is utterly dependent on this continuing (regardless of what my views on public finances are) - then you have no argument for this abundance of money for purchasing government bonds, stopping anytime this half of the decade, if not far longer...

Ample time for us to reduce our Public Debt vs GDP levels, far lower than even their lowest recent point - through maximization of GDP - and allowing Full Employment for the whole duration, while at it.

efanton · 04-07-2020 2:17pm

KyussB wrote: »

There are no borrowing limits. They are suspended. In a negative interest rate environment, with QE, banking/financial institutions will lend to governments at close to the interest rate, with some spread for profits - giving us not only low interest rate bonds, but often negative interest rate bonds...

If you understand anything about why we have negative interest rates, why we have QE, and why the entire Eurozone is utterly dependent on this continuing (regardless of what my views on public finances are) - then you have no argument for this abundance of money for purchasing government bonds, stopping anytime this half of the decade, if not far longer...

Ample time for us to reduce our Public Debt vs GDP levels, far lower than even their lowest recent point - through maximization of GDP - and allowing Full Employment for the whole duration, while at it.

You keep telling others to understand and yet you are no prepared to do so yourself.

Borrowing limits have been suspended for the sole purpose of dealing with the covid crisis. The government cannot borrow beyond its agreed limits for anything not related to dealing with covid.

This conversation is over unless you are prepared to agree that any loan is a business decision made by the the banks and financial institutions.
Do you agree with that?

Do you also agree that there is no cast iron guarantee that the government can borrow as much as it wants whenever it wants?
If you disagree please provide the evidence of this guarantee.

KyussB · 04-07-2020 2:38pm

efanton wrote: »

You keep telling others to understand and yet you are no prepared to do so yourself.

Borrowing limits have been suspended for the sole purpose of dealing with the covid crisis. The government cannot borrow beyond its agreed limits for anything not related to dealing with covid.

This conversation is over unless you are prepared to agree that any loan is a business decision made by the the banks and financial institutions.
Do you agree with that?

Do you also agree that there is no cast iron guarantee that the government can borrow as much as it wants whenever it wants?
If you disagree please provide the evidence of this guarantee.

I've repeatedly debunked the exact same points you are bringing up again and again, and you don't listen - so you are failing to understand:
The borrowing limts are suspended. The economic crisis is part of the covid crisis. The Stability and Growth Pact deficit limits are unenforceable, due to having given favourable treatment to all of France, Germany, Spain and Portugal - and to attempt to enforce it, would trigger a fresh EU political/economic crisis.

That's a non-issue, a non-runner, and would result in a very welcome EU-level confrontation and reforms among all member states, if attempts to enforce it were issued.

You are asking me that question, regarding business decisions from banks/financial institutions - in order for you try try to claim that government finances work like household/business finances - and I have explained to you, how government finances do not operating like household/business finances, regardless of the decisionmaking banking/financial institutions use, in deciding whether to or not to purchase government bonds.

So your question is irrelevant - and I had already asked you before you ever asked that:
Do you know any business or household that's able to tax an entire economy (which keeps growing in size permanently) to back paying its debts, and which typically rolls over its debts forever, with a long-term permanently increasing stock of debt (not the same as percentage relative to GDP)?

Your last question is also a loaded question, assuming that the policies I advocate require such a cast-iron guarantee - they do not, as the need to borrow depends upon macroeconomic conditions and whether we are in a period of Full-Employment/Full-Output - and macroeconomic conditions now, and likely for most of the decade, all but guarantee an abundance of demand for government bonds.

We both know you're not going to leave the conversation there, as you claim - you're going to try to continue a rhetorical attack.

efanton · 04-07-2020 2:57pm

KyussB wrote: »

I've repeatedly debunked the exact same points you are bringing up again and again, and you don't listen - so you are failing to understand:
The borrowing limts are suspended. The economic crisis is part of the covid crisis. The Stability and Growth Pact deficit limits are unenforceable, due to having given favourable treatment to all of France, Germany, Spain and Portugal - and to attempt to enforce it, would trigger a fresh EU political/economic crisis.

That's a non-issue, a non-runner, and would result in a very welcome EU-level confrontation and reforms among all member states, if attempts to enforce it were issued.

You are asking me that question, regarding business decisions from banks/financial institutions - in order for you try try to claim that government finances work like household/business finances - and I have explained to you, how government finances do not operating like household/business finances, regardless of the decisionmaking banking/financial institutions use, in deciding whether to or not to purchase government bonds.

So your question is irrelevant - and I had already asked you before you ever asked that:
Do you know any business or household that's able to tax an entire economy (which keeps growing in size permanently) to back paying its debts, and which typically rolls over its debts forever, with a long-term permanently increasing stock of debt (not the same as percentage relative to GDP)?

Your last question is also a loaded question, assuming that the policies I advocate require such a cast-iron guarantee - they do not, as the need to borrow depends upon macroeconomic conditions and whether we are in a period of Full-Employment/Full-Output - and macroeconomic conditions now, and likely for most of the decade, all but guarantee an abundance of demand for government bonds.

We both know you're not going to leave the conversation there, as you claim - you're going to try to continue a rhetorical attack.

you sir are being completely idiotic.

I fully understand what I write, I would not write it otherwise.

It was not a loaded question, in fact it was extremely relevant. No doubt it was a question that you wish not to answer because you cannot.

If you cannot have a rational conversation and back up your claims with facts (not theories), then you simply do not have an argument.

Dont bother replying, if you are not prepared to accept reality then this conversation is over.

KyussB · 04-07-2020 3:08pm

Ya well if you don't mind writing it without the insults then...

I have directly explained how government finances do not operate like household/business finances - again repeating this for maybe the 5th/6th time - and you have no answer to this:
Do you know any business or household that's able to tax an entire economy (which keeps growing in size permanently) to back paying its debts, and which typically rolls over its debts forever, with a long-term permanently increasing stock of debt (not the same as percentage relative to GDP)?

Those fundamental differences hold, regardless of the decisionmaking that goes into banking/financial purchases of government bonds (your first question rendered irrelevant...), and without the requirement of a cast-iron guarantee over bond purchases all of the time (as bond purchases are not required all of the time - it depends on macroeconomic conditions - rendering your second question irrelevant).

The fact is - and this makes both of those questions further irrelevant - as I have been saying repeatedly, the negative interest rate environment will not be going away anytime in the next half decade at least (the collapse of the Eurozone would be the end-result, otherwise) - which inherently means abundant demand for government bonds, that is all but guaranteed for that period of time.

Galwayguy35 · 05-07-2020 9:05pm

John Connors is organising a protest outside the Dail on the 18th calling for O Gorman to be sacked, will be interesting to see how this plays out.

The Greens are just ignoring him because they can't be seen to criticise Connors but he ain't letting it go.

Rows Grower · 05-07-2020 9:31pm

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

John Connors is organising a protest outside the Dail on the 18th calling for O Gorman to be sacked, will be interesting to see how this plays out.

The Greens are just ignoring him because they can't be seen to criticise Connors but he ain't letting it go.

Got sent a WhatsApp message earlier today of Connors speaking about the controversy.

He’s an articulate man and is disgusted and very worried by the situation.

Eric Cartman · 05-07-2020 11:17pm

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

John Connors is organising a protest outside the Dail on the 18th calling for O Gorman to be sacked, will be interesting to see how this plays out.

The Greens are just ignoring him because they can't be seen to criticise Connors but he ain't letting it go.

this is one of those magic moments when the left goes whisper quiet because they can't be seen to pick sides between a traveller, a gay minister and condemning/defending a paedophile sympathiser.

Geuze · 05-07-2020 11:19pm

Eric Cartman wrote: »

this is one of those magic moments when the left goes whisper quiet because they can't be seen to pick sides between a traveller, a gay minister and condemning/defending a paedophile sympathiser.

Very funny.

Tell me how · 06-07-2020 3:18am

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

John Connors is organising a protest outside the Dail on the 18th calling for O Gorman to be sacked, will be interesting to see how this plays out.

The Greens are just ignoring him because they can't be seen to criticise Connors but he ain't letting it go.

Interesting to see people on Boards now posting in favour of something John Connors is saying/doing.

Wonder how long this will last?

jmayo · 06-07-2020 9:54am

Eric Cartman wrote: »

this is one of those magic moments when the left goes whisper quiet because they can't be seen to pick sides between a traveller, a gay minister and condemning/defending a paedophile sympathiser.

Reminds of when the travellers in Castelbar objected to refugees being housed near them as they wanted the house for one of their own.

The right on crew didn't know where to jump.

Tell me how wrote: »

Interesting to see people on Boards now posting in favour of something John Connors is saying/doing.

Wonder how long this will last?

Why ?
You do know even people you normally vehemently disagree with can sometimes have points and causes that you may agree with.

This is the problem with modern current affairs and politics, where people pick a side and refuse to countenance anything at all, however sensible it may be, that comes from the opposing side.

Rows Grower · 06-07-2020 10:00am

Tell me how wrote: »

Interesting to see people on Boards now posting in favour of something John Connors is saying/doing.

Wonder how long this will last?

What is your point?

drunkmonkey · 06-07-2020 1:36pm

Connors has tapped out he's moving on.

https://twitter.com/johnconnors1990/status/1280097563308429313?s=20

Galwayguy35 · 06-07-2020 7:05pm

Tell me how wrote: »

Interesting to see people on Boards now posting in favour of something John Connors is saying/doing.

Wonder how long this will last?

Well Connors was right on this one, the media turned a blind eye to it and it didn't even get a mention until today when O Gorman had to say something about it.

Although he reckons its the the far right who is out to get him despite the fact that there is no far right in Ireland.

He should have come out last Friday and distanced himself from Tatchell and his sick way of thinking and this would have been accepted by most people.

Eric Cartman · 06-07-2020 7:56pm

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Well Connors was right on this one, the media turned a blind eye to it and it didn't even get a mention until today when O Gorman had to say something about it.

Although he reckons its the the far right who is out to get him despite the fact that there is no far right in Ireland.

He should have come out last Friday and distanced himself from Tatchell and his sick way of thinking and this would have been accepted by most people.

he also said he met thatchell only once for that photo. Im sure somebody is trawling all the social media they can to see if there was ever another incident. One Green Party meeting together and its back in hot water for him.

drunkmonkey · 07-07-2020 8:21am

New Children's Minister to make it easier for under-16s to change their gender.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/new-childrens-minister-to-make-it-easier-for-under-16s-to-change-their-gender-39346464.html

Starting to wonder about the Greens...

Rows Grower · 07-07-2020 9:49am

drunkmonkey wrote: »

New Children's Minister to make it easier for under-16s to change their gender.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/new-childrens-minister-to-make-it-easier-for-under-16s-to-change-their-gender-39346464.html

Starting to wonder about the Greens...

That's a very strange issue to have as your top priority as Minister for Children.

_Kaiser_ · 07-07-2020 10:06am

Ryan is on R1 now.

Capra · 07-07-2020 10:07am

drunkmonkey wrote: »

New Children's Minister to make it easier for under-16s to change their gender.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/new-childrens-minister-to-make-it-easier-for-under-16s-to-change-their-gender-39346464.html

Starting to wonder about the Greens...

They have plenty of form in questionable policies.

https://www.thejournal.ie/green-party-germany-manifesto-1980s-1086083-Sep2013/

silverharp · 07-07-2020 10:28am

I hope they arent going down the route The Greens in Germany went down in the 60's and 70's. To come out the door with this is not very smart.

VillageIdiot71 · 07-07-2020 10:30am

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Connors has tapped out he's moving on.

Probably the right course of action, and this is probably the first time I've agreed with him so fully on a topic.

I mean, the issue was only to extract some necessary clarity. I'm sure Rod wasn't expecting that the nice guy from England that held the Green Party banner with him at a parade, (yes, I know he was born in Footscray) who was campaigning for gay rights before Rod was a couple of gametes, wrote something unusual about joyful nine year olds.

Nice summer day. Vaguely heard this guy is someone famous. I must Tweet and get the street cred!

The problem is more how he's handled it now, and even his statement is poor and if his candour and balance doesn't improve he'll have a lot of problems in handling several potentially charged issues. Because he was forced into taking a back-step, and he didn't do it graciously. That heralds potential problems when he's trying to deal with things like Direct Provision - where the people wanting change stretch from folk who want to close our borders (easy enough when there's a pandemic, you'd think) to people who want completely open borders.

Looks like this guy will struggle to bring people along with him. Many of the folk who queried his endorsement of Tatchell were parents with named Twitter accounts. He's just antagonised all of them, by lumping them in with anonymous trolls.

Like John Connors, I think we should Welease Woderic, so far as this matter goes. But I think he'll dump himself back into it again, soon enough.

keano_afc · 07-07-2020 11:20am

drunkmonkey wrote: »

New Children's Minister to make it easier for under-16s to change their gender.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/new-childrens-minister-to-make-it-easier-for-under-16s-to-change-their-gender-39346464.html

Starting to wonder about the Greens...

Well that didnt take long. I'm sure anyone who questions him on this will be a far-right homophobe, and called faceless trolls by our elected representatives.

1800_Ladladlad · 07-07-2020 12:28pm

drunkmonkey wrote: »

New Children's Minister to make it easier for under-16s to change their gender.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/new-childrens-minister-to-make-it-easier-for-under-16s-to-change-their-gender-39346464.html

Starting to wonder about the Greens...

He's not wasting any time is he!! If they believe that 16 children have the same faculties as an adult, then IMO they believe sex with 16 y/o is not rape. Hence the first step toward in attempting to legitimize pedophilia. I find this very odd that after the other conversation was shut down for concerns "homophobia", Will any criticism or dissent be accused of being far right or homophobic? Its wrong.

drunkmonkey · 07-07-2020 1:22pm

Yea your a far right homophobe if you don't embrace left wing child trans ideology. I'm finding it pretty hilarious watching the terfs on Facebook, all men need to do is sit back and have a beer and let them at it.
He could have calmed things down yesterday instead he insulted a lot of people then he comes after their Childrens gender this morning. I was giving he the benifit of the doubt, know I think he needs to go immediately.

Tea drinker · 07-07-2020 1:26pm

“It’s an attempt by the far right to silence people from minorities and to suppress difference. They’ll use whatever they can to undermine those who seek to stand up to their agenda. But it certainly isn’t going to work with me.”

Mr O’Gorman has been criticised in recent days for marching alongside British LGBT rights campaigner Peter Tatchell at Dublin’s Pride march two years ago.

In a 1997 letter to the Guardian, Mr Tatchell controversially wrote that some of his friends had made a “conscious choice” to have sex with an adult when they were under the age of 13. “While it may be impossible to condone paedophilia, it is time society acknowledged the truth that not all sex involving children is unwanted, abusive and harmful,” wrote the British campaigner.

Mr Tatchell has since claimed the letter was edited and said sex with children was “impossible to condone”. “This means I condemn it,” he said in a tweet posted last week. “I oppose adults having sex with children.”

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/minister-for-children-condemns-homophobic-attacks-from-far-right-1.4297259

Seems like the best defence is a good offence (both meanings)

Eric Cartman · 07-07-2020 2:01pm

drunkmonkey wrote: »

New Children's Minister to make it easier for under-16s to change their gender.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/new-childrens-minister-to-make-it-easier-for-under-16s-to-change-their-gender-39346464.html

Starting to wonder about the Greens...

Absolutely disgusting. This has no place in our society. Nobody would adovcate for allowing under 16s to get tattoos or plastic surgery, but if its this agenda then its full steam ahead. Since when is it acceptable to allow children to make very possibly damaging and irreparable choices.

ELM327 · 07-07-2020 2:21pm

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Absolutely disgusting. This has no place in our society. Nobody would adovcate for allowing under 16s to get tattoos or plastic surgery, but if its this agenda then its full steam ahead. Since when is it acceptable to allow children to make very possibly damaging and irreparable choices.

Look at the other thread on this specific subject.
References (risible ones) are made to "crisis puberty".

It is laughable and concerning what the left will condone when it suits their needs

Eric Cartman · 07-07-2020 2:30pm

ELM327 wrote: »

Look at the other thread on this specific subject.
References (risible ones) are made to "crisis puberty".

It is laughable and concerning what the left will condone when it suits their needs

Saw that, barbaric what people want to allow children to do. I can oppose all of this concerted effort to attack children knowing full well that ill always be on the right side of history.

Tell me how · 07-07-2020 2:33pm

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Absolutely disgusting. This has no place in our society. Nobody would adovcate for allowing under 16s to get tattoos or plastic surgery, but if its this agenda then its full steam ahead. Since when is it acceptable to allow children to make very possibly damaging and irreparable choices.

Do you think the age of consent should be raised above 16?
But the choice to have sex could lead to very possibly damaging and irreparable choices couldn't it?

On the wider topic, of gender identification, I'm trying to stay out of that conversation, but is the proposal not just that it would allow the person to do so in conjunction with their parents and GP?

Tea drinker · 07-07-2020 2:45pm

Tell me how wrote: »

Do you think the age of consent should be raised above 16?
But the choice to have sex could lead to very possibly damaging and irreparable choices couldn't it?

On the wider topic, of gender identification, I'm trying to stay out of that conversation, but is the proposal not just that it would allow the person to do so in conjunction with their parents and GP?

Whatever about kids banging each other it's potentially safer than letting a kid get itself cut up in some surgery. Or the sometimes follow up surgery to try to go back. I actually don't get this myself, I wonder how many parents are actively pushing for or against it. I think children are far more at risk of a ruined life by poor parenting and truancy that feeling trapped in wrong sex body

Tell me how · 07-07-2020 2:53pm

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Saw that, barbaric what people want to allow children to do. I can oppose all of this concerted effort to attack children knowing full well that ill always be on the right side of history.

That is quite a statement. I wonder how many people would look back on views they held when they were younger and are glad they no longer hold them?

I'm not saying you are definitely going to, or should change your mind on this but to say the above with such conviction is interesting.

Geuze · 07-07-2020 3:22pm

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Absolutely disgusting. This has no place in our society. Nobody would adovcate for allowing under 16s to get tattoos or plastic surgery, but if its this agenda then its full steam ahead. Since when is it acceptable to allow children to make very possibly damaging and irreparable choices.

Myself and my friends have been saying for years that these people won't stop.

They see themselves as having "won" on several issues:

same-sex marriage
abortion

We have often asked out loud "what's next?"

this gender stuff
men having babies
sex-ed - they are pushing to make it law to teach certain issues
removing the importance of families / stay at home mothers
restriction on what you can say, even though it's the truth
positive discrimination for Africans: jobs, places on boards, etc.

Geuze · 07-07-2020 3:46pm

Eric Cartman wrote: »

The rest of the stuff is just throwing a green sticker over ‘tax the middle and upper classes even more to death’

I am reading the PfG now.

The only tax increases planned, as far as I can see, are as follows:

(1) Carbon tax, from 26 euro now, to 100 euro by 2030

(2) ".....we will focus any tax rises on those taxes that tax behaviours with negative externalities, such as carbon tax, sugar tax, and plastics.

So I would expect a sugar tax on food.

Tell me how · 07-07-2020 5:08pm

Geuze wrote: »

Myself and my friends have been saying for years that these people won't stop.

They see themselves as having "won" on several issues:

same-sex marriage
abortion

We have often asked out loud "what's next?"

this gender stuff
men having babies
sex-ed - they are pushing to make it law to teach certain issues
removing the importance of families / stay at home mothers
restriction on what you can say, even though it's the truth
positive discrimination for Africans: jobs, places on boards, etc.

What was your stance on SSM and abortion or would see that you 'won' or 'lost' those debates also?

The rest of your post looks like your are hypothesizing that here is what they 'could' be looking at next and in a few days someone will reference these points and take your post as a defacto manifesto.

Annasopra · 07-07-2020 5:34pm

1800_Ladladlad wrote: »

He's not wasting any time is he!! If they believe that 16 children have the same faculties as an adult, then IMO they believe sex with 16 y/o is not rape. Hence the first step toward in attempting to legitimize pedophilia. I find this very odd that after the other conversation was shut down for concerns "homophobia", Will any criticism or dissent be accused of being far right or homophobic? Its wrong.

Jeez you really are coming out with complete and utter drivel and nonsense. Trans children and paedophilia are entirely unrelated issues. This is just lies that the Minister wants to legitimise paedophilia.

Annasopra · 07-07-2020 5:36pm

Tea drinker wrote: »

Whatever about kids banging each other it's potentially safer than letting a kid get itself cut up in some surgery. Or the sometimes follow up surgery to try to go back. I actually don't get this myself, I wonder how many parents are actively pushing for or against it. I think children are far more at risk of a ruined life by poor parenting and truancy that feeling trapped in wrong sex body

No-one is advocating surgery for trans children

Eric Cartman · 07-07-2020 6:00pm

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

No-one is advocating surgery for trans children

then what are they advocating, and how far is too far.

is it just a change of details on a birth cert / passport , is it puberty blockers or hrt which I would consider a big issue for children, is the next step surgery ?

how far do you think a 14 year old, a 16 year old or an 18 year old should be allowed go with this ?

Edgware · 07-07-2020 6:02pm

Geuze wrote: »

Myself and my friends have been saying for years that these people won't stop.

They see themselves as having "won" on several issues:

same-sex marriage
abortion

We have often asked out loud "what's next?"

this gender stuff
men having babies
sex-ed - they are pushing to make it law to teach certain issues
removing the importance of families / stay at home mothers
restriction on what you can say, even though it's the truth
positive discrimination for Africans: jobs, places on boards, etc.

Not to forget reducing the size of Yorkie bars

Tell me how · 07-07-2020 6:57pm

Eric Cartman wrote: »

then what are they advocating, and how far is too far.

is it just a change of details on a birth cert / passport , is it puberty blockers or hrt which I would consider a big issue for children, is the next step surgery ?

how far do you think a 14 year old, a 16 year old or an 18 year old should be allowed go with this ?

Do you think there should be limitations on what an 18 year old can do?

Including them along with the 14 and 16 above looks like you have an issue with any surgery, rather than just the age of the person undergoing it.

Galwayguy35 · 07-07-2020 7:32pm

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Connors has tapped out he's moving on.

https://twitter.com/johnconnors1990/status/1280097563308429313?s=20

Not quite it seems, he is taking part in a march outside the Dail on Saturday so looks like he isn't prepared to let O Gorman off the hook just yet.

The woke brigade are having a meltdown over on his twitter because H Kelly will be there as well.

Tea drinker · 07-07-2020 8:29pm

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Jeez you really are coming out with complete and utter drivel and nonsense. Trans children and paedophilia are entirely unrelated issues. This is just lies that the Minister wants to legitimise paedophilia.

The rationale another poster put forward seems sound to me - that lowering age for life altering surgery is a far more serious and life changing matter than when you lose your virginity (or are raped).
But with quite regular occurrence it seems if you criticicise the Trans ideology you are a homophobe. This happened in the media literally today.
He also tagged in "racist" to garner more effect in what seems to be a completely unrelated matter

Hazel Chu has also been subjected to online attacks around race, said Mr O’Gorman.

“It’s an attempt by the far right to silence people from minorities and to suppress difference. They’ll use whatever they can to undermine those who seek to stand up to their agenda. But it certainly isn’t going to work with me.”

Not the first time politicians pushed for lowering consent
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/norris-opposed-arbitrary-age-considerations-for-sexual-relations-1.614098

Anyway, the ironic thing in all this is the actual racists attacking the likes of Chu online have become useful idiots for o'Gorman to hide his own unrelated issues behind.

I'm just curious for the mandate for this, if there should be a referendum? What do people actually want from the government nobody elected?
And certainly not for this, so who are they to trample on the public?

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Not quite it seems, he is taking part in a march outside the Dail on Saturday so looks like he isn't prepared to let O Gorman off the hook just yet.

The woke brigade are having a meltdown over on his twitter because H Kelly will be there as well.

R Kelly ?

Annasopra · 07-07-2020 8:33pm

Tea drinker wrote: »

The rationale another poster put forward seems sound to me - that lowering age for life altering surgery is a far more serious and life changing matter than when you lose your virginity (or are raped).
But with quite regular occurrence it seems if you criticicise the Trans ideology you are a homophobe. This happened in the media literally today.
He also tagged in "racist" to garner more effect in what seems to be a completely unrelated matter

Not the first time politicians pushed for lowering consent
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/norris-opposed-arbitrary-age-considerations-for-sexual-relations-1.614098

Anyway, the ironic thing in all this is the actual racists attacking the likes of Chu online have become useful idiots for Ryan to hide his own unrelated issues behind.

I'm just curious for the mandate for this, if there should be a referendum? What do people actually want from the government nobody elected?
And certainly not for this, so who are they to trample on the public?

Stop lying. Nobody is advocating surgery. Nobody is advocating paedophilia. Trans children and paedophilia are entirely separate issues. Yes I do think you are transphonbic trying to link the issue of trans children and paedophilia.

suicide_circus · 07-07-2020 8:42pm

https://mobile.twitter.com/rodericogorman/status/1280568320526254088?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet

He's moved on to racism now.

Green Party wish list.

Comments