|
Nilbop posted:It splits a nationalist town in 3 and dilutes it's voting power over 3 constituencies. This is literally replicated all over the DUP's proposed map, and is so obviously sectarian I'm honestly staggered you're feigning ignorance on it. What im saying is that the division of its voting bloc doesn't significantly alter the outcome in the new constituencies - Two of its wards are transferred into solid nationalist seats and the third placed into the Causeway seat which, with the presence of the much largely population of Coleraine, will be solid Unionist p easily even if you include the entirety of Dungiven. The initial proposals would have split off Dungiven from Coleraine but the resulting populations shifts into other seats would have lead to no net gain/loss for either side - The combination of Mid Ulster/West Tyrone/East Derry/North Antrim/East Antrim returning 2 Nationalist/3 Unionist and the initial proposals of West Tyrone/Glenshane/Dalriada/West Antrim/East Antrim returning the exact same outcomes. What im saying is im not seeing the electoral advantage when arguably the initial proposals exclusion of Limavady granted the DUP a more easily defendable seat only including Coleraine and its environs. Does it dilute Dungiven as a single entity? Yes and thats bad as towns and urban small urban centres should not be split amongst constituencies. Does that dilution result in a tangible political advtange in favour of Unionism? Im not seeing a significant one. Nilbop posted:The idea that rather than reflecting the makeup of the city Belfast should expand out into other constituencies is both nonsensical and impractical. Worse, it's brazenly there to placate the DUP. The idea that the city with a population of majority Nationalists would be governed by a grossly disproportionate 3-1 Loyalist minority is something only the most dishonest person could possibly advocate for. The various boundary commissions have been arguing to cut Belfast down to three for years and years and have routinely backed down when faced with combined opposition from the DUP, UUP and SDLP to the issue - there was even a time when SF was not in favour of it as it would slice West Belfast in two. We're losing a constituency so constituencies need to expand out and gobble up parts of other constituencies regardless and its not like Belfasts increasing suburban sprawl is not a real and tangible thing. I think its worth pointing in the direction of Dr Nicholas Whyte, about the only local government wonk we have, who advocated cutting Belfast down to three seats for some time but recently changed his opinion to back a four seat Belfast based on the SDLPs submissions on the issue. Your approaching this from the political outcomes of the different plans, which the commission is not allowed to do - at the end of the day there is a persistent and loudly voiced desire within South Belfast for it to retain a specific distinct unit and the commission had numerous submissions from various South Belfast figures (including Claire Hanna) calling for it's status as a unique constituency to be maintained. And South Belfast is in no way a Unionist lock, better vote management between the parties could extremely easily turn the seat back to Nationalist and return a citywide 2-2 result and I wouldn't back on the DUP continuing to hold it even if the new boundaries are enacted if the opposition parties got their act together and formed even a partial pact. Nilbop posted:I'm saying this as a lifelong SDLP voter - the SDLP are a minority party and not representative of the Nationalist community's views. I rather imagine you know this but continue to reference them anyway. There's a reason why I'm not basing my arguement off the statements made by the UUP, who are not in power and represent very few Loyalists, as opposed to the DUP who represent almost all of them. Im referencing the SDLPs proposals a lot because they are the only Nationalist party to submit anything to the Boundary commission - SF submitted no formal suggestions or recommendations at all in the consultation process save a quick note saying that census figures rather than the electoral register should be used. Claiming a gerrymander in favour of the DUP cause many of the key changes that would alter the political balance where being reversed in the most recent proposal while the SDLPs own suggestions also supported reversing these changes should make people think twice i think. quote:Dungannon was never going to be split across 2 constituencies - Mid-Ulster outright lost it to Upper Bann & Blackwater. Under the DUP's proposal it is to be split between four constituencies. The four wards of Dungannon town are Ballysaggart, Mullaghmore, Killymeal and Moygashel - all currently in F&ST. The initial plans transferred Ballysaggart, Killymeal and Moygashel to Upper Bann & Blackwater but moved Mullaghmore into North Tyrone - and this isn't even mentioning the various wards immediately west of the town proper very much in immediate economic sphere where retained in F&ST. The DUP proposed keeping all four wards in F&ST, a call for continuity, and the revised proposals (in scrapping Upper Bann & Blackwater all together to accommodate a fourth Belfast seat) similarly keeps all four wards in F&ST quote:All of this aside, I'm honestly shocked that you can try and defend a proposal that is so obviously dictated by one political party. This is almost verbatim the proposal of the DUP, and obviously a reflection of their then-influence on the wobbly Tory government. Unless you were a DUP hardliner yourself I'm legitimately astounded you'd attempt to defend a brazen case of gerrymandering. Im sceptical of the Gerrymander calls because the commission has largely fallen back to a plan of maintaining existing constituency configuration in terms of what urban centres should form the centre of constiunecies rather than their initial proposals which where a slightly souped up version of a plan they drew up initially to cut NI back to 16 MPs (before the Lib Dems backed out that). There's an extremely clear logic when you look at the current constituency map and the the second round of proposals - even the pamphlets SF have been circulating recently are very conspicuous in the fact they exclude a picture of our current constituency boundaries and only include the first round proposal.
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2018 22:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 01:19 |
|
|
kustomkarkommando posted:What im saying is that the division of its voting bloc doesn't significantly alter the outcome in the new constituencies - Two of its wards are transferred into solid nationalist seats and the third placed into the Causeway seat which, with the presence of the much largely population of Coleraine, will be solid Unionist p easily even if you include the entirety of Dungiven. The initial proposals would have split off Dungiven from Coleraine but the resulting populations shifts into other seats would have lead to no net gain/loss for either side - The combination of Mid Ulster/West Tyrone/East Derry/North Antrim/East Antrim returning 2 Nationalist/3 Unionist and the initial proposals of West Tyrone/Glenshane/Dalriada/West Antrim/East Antrim returning the exact same outcomes. What im saying is im not seeing the electoral advantage when arguably the initial proposals exclusion of Limavady granted the DUP a more easily defendable seat only including Coleraine and its environs. Causeway was specifically deisgned to be predominantly Loyalist. It's replacement, the 2016 proposal's Glenshane, was designed specifically to be competitive. The ridiculous geographic overreach of Causway was reduced and replaced with Dalriada, which retains it's Unionist majority while opening up County Londonderry to adequate political representation. quote:Does it dilute Dungiven as a single entity? Yes and thats bad as towns and urban small urban centres should not be split amongst constituencies. Does that dilution result in a tangible political advtange in favour of Unionism? Im not seeing a significant one. It's a town of 3,000 people, it's immediate effects are limited. What it's indicative of is intense, odious gerrymandering which you've apparently decided doesn't matter to you. Which I'd really hope would force a moment of introspection for you, but every single DUP I've spoken to about this, without fail, has said it's not a problem because it's only the taigs getting hit. quote:The various boundary commissions have been arguing to cut Belfast down to three for years and years and have routinely backed down when faced with combined opposition from the DUP, UUP and SDLP to the issue - The UUP and SDLP are virtually non-existant, so please stop trying to use them as props for your arguement. quote:there was even a time when SF was not in favour of it as it would slice West Belfast in two. We're losing a constituency so constituencies need to expand out and gobble up parts of other constituencies regardless and its not like Belfasts increasing suburban sprawl is not a real and tangible thing. I think its worth pointing in the direction of Dr Nicholas Whyte, about the only local government wonk we have, who advocated cutting Belfast down to three seats for some time but recently changed his opinion to back a four seat Belfast based on the SDLPs submissions on the issue. No Belfast constituency is served by "expanding and gobbling up" parts of rural areas, and those areas are definitely not served by having Belfast consume them. That's an absolutely ludicrous thing to say. The one and only reason these constituencies are being extended is to support the political goals one of particular party. quote:Your approaching this from the political outcomes of the different plans, which the commission is not allowed to do - at the end of the day there is a persistent and loudly voiced desire within South Belfast for it to retain a specific distinct unit and the commission had numerous submissions from various South Belfast figures (including Claire Hanna) calling for it's status as a unique constituency to be maintained. And South Belfast is in no way a Unionist lock, better vote management between the parties could extremely easily turn the seat back to Nationalist and return a citywide 2-2 result and I wouldn't back on the DUP continuing to hold it even if the new boundaries are enacted if the opposition parties got their act together and formed even a partial pact. Having been educated, trained and worked in South Belfast I can smell porky pies when somebody's trying to sell them to me. A cursory glance at the demographics of Belfast over the last decade provide 3 distinct and obvious areas - Southwest, Northwest and East. Southwest and Northwest have been growing faster than the east (for any number of obvious reasons) and are majority Nationalist. East is majority Loyalist. The 2016 proposals accurately and adequately reflected the political will and practical realities facing the communities living in the city. The DUP's proposal is sectarian conservatism, regressing us back to the days when the Loyalist majority could gerrymander border to reflect a Northern Ireland it wanted, rather than the one we all shared. quote:Im referencing the SDLPs proposals a lot because they are the only Nationalist party to submit anything to the Boundary commission - SF submitted no formal suggestions or recommendations at all in the consultation process save a quick note saying that census figures rather than the electoral register should be used. Claiming a gerrymander in favour of the DUP cause many of the key changes that would alter the political balance where being reversed in the most recent proposal while the SDLPs own suggestions also supported reversing these changes should make people think twice i think. To suggest that the SDLP supported the DUP's attempts at gerrymander rather than opposed them is so brazen of you I'm genuinely deperessed. Proclaiming outright gerrymander and political bias IN THIS COUNTRY, WITH THIS HISTORY, as okay because the other side had every opportunity to oppose them (and is) is the thinking of 70s Loyalism and 80s Afrikaans. quote:The four wards of Dungannon town are Ballysaggart, Mullaghmore, Killymeal and Moygashel - all currently in F&ST. The initial plans transferred Ballysaggart, Killymeal and Moygashel to Upper Bann & Blackwater but moved Mullaghmore into North Tyrone - and this isn't even mentioning the various wards immediately west of the town proper very much in immediate economic sphere where retained in F&ST. The DUP proposed keeping all four wards in F&ST, a call for continuity, and the revised proposals (in scrapping Upper Bann & Blackwater all together to accommodate a fourth Belfast seat) similarly keeps all four wards in F&ST The DUP opposed the creation of new constituencies because there is literally no better geographic lay-out for them with regards to recreation, merely alteration to existing constituencies. They have no regard for the realities of commerce, commutes, where people live, where they worship, where they go to school, where they play football, where they drink, where they relax, where they go to the post office or where they take a piss. The North Tyrone and Glenshane constituencies in particular where a remarkable breath of fresh air in this regard, reflecting where the people of their relevant counties worked, did business, went to school and commuted; i.e. it reflected their needs and desires and would be at least ADEQUATELY representative of them. The creation of Upper Bann and Blackwater shone a light on a much overlooked region south of the lough with critical infrastructural and agricultural needs between Dungannon and Craigavon. Strangford accurately addressed the reality that the communities BOTH sides of Strangford Lough are codependant and massively integrated. And yet the DUP's ludicrous proposals, inbetween cannibalizing Nationalist towns for Loyalist profit, has partitioned the Ards peninsula into it's own constituency, as if Strangford and Portaferry have no relationship, as if what decisions were made on the water in Whiterock and Killyleagh won't affect Greyabbey and Kircubbin, and as if Newtownards doesn't exist! They also have the gall to name it North Down in what I'm jovially interpreting as a personal "gently caress You" to Lady Hermon. quote:Im sceptical of the Gerrymander calls because the commission has largely fallen back to a plan of maintaining existing constituency configuration in terms of what urban centres should form the centre of constiunecies rather than their initial proposals which where a slightly souped up version of a plan they drew up initially to cut NI back to 16 MPs (before the Lib Dems backed out that). There's an extremely clear logic when you look at the current constituency map and the the second round of proposals - even the pamphlets SF have been circulating recently are very conspicuous in the fact they exclude a picture of our current constituency boundaries and only include the first round proposal. The 2016 proposal did not reference the one-time intent to remove an extra MP, it referenced non-partisan reality in the North. It referenced population growth and where that population lived, worked and travelled, and partitioned the country into regions best able to administer that growth by abadoning historical divisions which were themselves the lasting result of Loyalist gerrymander. The reason the DUP's proposal rejects the new constituencies in their entirety and why they sneered so contemptuously on twitter at a Nationalist majority populace having a Nationalist majority government (that mocking "We'll see about that!" jibe by Paisley as he derided the taigs yet again was particularly odious) was because the current system favoured them better than any non-partisan reinterpretation of the borders.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2018 04:18
|
|
|
Happy Easter, folks!
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2018 17:42
|
|
|
ffs
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2018 18:18
|
|
|
RA apparel evidently no good at disguising the fat back 
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2018 18:36
|
|
|
Absolute unit
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2018 19:54
|
|
|
That poor fleg is getting an awful spitroasting.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2018 12:47
|
|
|
Nilbop posted:Causeway was specifically deisgned to be predominantly Loyalist. It's replacement, the 2016 proposal's Glenshane, was designed specifically to be competitive. The ridiculous geographic overreach of Causway was reduced and replaced with Dalriada, which retains it's Unionist majority while opening up County Londonderry to adequate political representation. Glenshane was not designed to be competitive - it was designed to cover most of the pre-1997 East Derry constiuency but with the Bann as the eastward border. Its remarkably similar in shape to the old constituency with the exclusion of Coleraine, the second largest urban centre in County Derry, and Portstewart and the inclusion of the area stretching from Claudy to Park that got kicked out of Foyle last go around. The commission is not allowed to consider the political outcomes of this decision and Glenshane's shape is largely defined by a mix of county boundaries and geography. I don't have much issue with Glenshane tbh though i think some of the wards in the Bann DEA on the eastern side of the Sperrins are poorly served from being cut off from their immediate economic hub of Coleraine(something which was a weird pattern in the initial proposal which placed a lot of large towns smack bang on the edge of constituency boundaries). Also i'm not sure I would call the recent plans a geographical over-reach - It's p. much the Causeway Coast and Glens District Council, who's boundaries it should be added where agreed by SF & the DUP after a lengthy lengthy consultation, and its not like substantial transport and economic links don't exist between Coleraine and Limavady / Coleraine and Ballymoney. Trimming off the Glenshane pass wards is more reflective of their economic realities but I could go either way on Limavady. Nilbop posted:It's a town of 3,000 people, it's immediate effects are limited. What it's indicative of is intense, odious gerrymandering which you've apparently decided doesn't matter to you. Which I'd really hope would force a moment of introspection for you, but every single DUP I've spoken to about this, without fail, has said it's not a problem because it's only the taigs getting hit. Are you under the impression I'm a DUP voter here? Cause lol at that. The Dungiven split is patently absurd and I agree it should be corrected - I don't think it was a conscious act of gerrymandering though. The initial proposal was also peppered with some very odd choices (Castlederg being cut off from not only Strabane but also Omagh, Cullybackey in a different seat from Ballymena, Randalstown in a different seat from Antrim, Glengormley being split between four different constituencies, Netwonbreda being in a seat who's largest urban centre is Banbridge, Carryduff being split between two constituencies, Dungannon town in two constituencies and cut off from the Clogher valley, Bleary and Waringstown being separated from the Lurgan-Craigavon-Portadown conurbation in which they are completely integrated) but again I thought this was down to bad decision making rather than gerrymandering. You've referenced evident gerrymandering and towns being split in two in the current proposal multiple times - care to point me in the direction of some of these? I of course recognize the Dungiven issue and agree yes that should be resolved. I've mentioned some of the issues i had with the previous review above, some of which the new review resolved some of which it didn't - Antrim continues to be a mess as the commission is sticking with its Antrim to Lisburn seat that is centred on the bleeding airport for some reason rather than linking Antrim to Ballymena which makes more sense in my opinion. The weird as hell Netownards to Banbridge thing is an abomination which was in the DUP and SDLP plans which I strongly strongly dislike. But my solution for that would be to divide Down into East and West halfs uniting Netwonards to Downpatrick in one seat and the Mournes & Banbridge in an other - which I doubt people would like very much. Nilbop posted:The UUP and SDLP are virtually non-existant, so please stop trying to use them as props for your arguement. You don't see how alternative proposals which also take issue with certain decisions of the boundary commission and recommends alterations not unlike what have been implemented as being in any way relevant to a discussion about how the proposed plans are designed specifically on the whim of a single party? The vehemence with which you throw out the opinions of parties representing 20% of the population is surprisingly strong. Nilbop posted:No Belfast constituency is served by "expanding and gobbling up" parts of rural areas, and those areas are definitely not served by having Belfast consume them. That's an absolutely ludicrous thing to say. The one and only reason these constituencies are being extended is to support the political goals one of particular party. The only wards being added to Belfast that I would call predominately Rural are Drumbo, Moneyreigh and maybe Mollusk (which has a large industrial estate at one end) - And i would add the DUP's North Belfast proposal didn't add Mollusk. I understand the logic of a three seat Belfast, sticking to the agreed district council boundaries makes sense. I began leaning towards four seats largely because of the pigs ear the initial proposal made in regards to how to deal with the large suburban built up areas being ejected from Belfast and their rejection of district council boundaries anywhere outside of Belfast. Dundonald into North Down makes a degree of sense but Strangford seems a better suit considering the transport links to Netwonards. Castlereagh south, the corridor stretching from Netwonbreda and Four Winds down to Carryduff, gets spread out between two constituencies with piratically a vertical split down the saintfield road and I find it hard to believe that the 16,000 odd voters of a built up area contiguous to Belfast that includes Forestside and is practically indistinguishable from other leafy suburbs at its northern end are better served in predominately rural constituencies. Netwonabbey, the vile toad squatting at the top of Belfast, will subsequently have to be divided up somehow but the initial proposals bizarre four way split was incredibly messy. I don't think the argument that people in the Rathcoole estate or Glengormley are not well served by being integrated in Belfast holds much water - even Jordanstown isn't much more than a dormitory town. The vast majority of extra wards being added are in the North and are massively built up and a part of the Belfast conurbation - If you showed someone an unlabeled aerial map of Belfast and told them to draw a line around the city I doubt they would see the Netwonabbey to Belfast division as clearly as some do. So on Balance you either eject densely populated urban wards with no real developed economic centre of their own into predominately rural constituencies in the East or into a selection of high area constituencies in the North or you take in two rural wards. I think the balance sheet is tipping towards four seats but I would be happy to look at three seats if someone showed me a plan that dealt with the suburban areas adequately - I've seen a couple of amateur sketches which weren't half bad and miles better than the initial proposal. Nilbop posted:Having been educated, trained and worked in South Belfast I can smell porky pies when somebody's trying to sell them to me. A cursory glance at the demographics of Belfast over the last decade provide 3 distinct and obvious areas - Southwest, Northwest and East. Southwest and Northwest have been growing faster than the east (for any number of obvious reasons) and are majority Nationalist. East is majority Loyalist. The 2016 proposals accurately and adequately reflected the political will and practical realities facing the communities living in the city. The DUP's proposal is sectarian conservatism, regressing us back to the days when the Loyalist majority could gerrymander border to reflect a Northern Ireland it wanted, rather than the one we all shared. What exactly are you saying I'm fibbing about? You can go read Claire Hanna's submission to the boundary commission yourself as well as various ones signed by Netwonbreda residents all of which argued to retain a "Belfast South" seat in some fashion. Belfast South under the new boundaries is projected to go 33% DUP, 23.7% SDLP, 18.6% Alliance, 14.8% SF and 5% Green - If SF did what they did back in 2010 and decline to field a candidate i'm pretty confident the SDLP would recapture the seat and turn the city wide constituency split into 2 Nationalist / 2 Unionist. Even the Greens pulling out and some tactical anti-DUP voting from voters who previously backed SF would be enough to swing it, it's still v much a marginal even under the new boundaries Nilbop posted:The DUP opposed the creation of new constituencies because there is literally no better geographic lay-out for them with regards to recreation, merely alteration to existing constituencies. They have no regard for the realities of commerce, commutes, where people live, where they worship, where they go to school, where they play football, where they drink, where they relax, where they go to the post office or where they take a piss. The North Tyrone and Glenshane constituencies in particular where a remarkable breath of fresh air in this regard, reflecting where the people of their relevant counties worked, did business, went to school and commuted; i.e. it reflected their needs and desires and would be at least ADEQUATELY representative of them. The adding of wards from West Tyrone into Fermanagh and South Tyrone and rotating the boundary between the two is pretty silly - Castlederg belongs more with Enniskillen than Strabane really? I would add that last time the boundary commission suggested relatively the same transfers back in 2012 the Omagh Borough Council strongly opposed cutting off these seem wards from West Tyrone as being detrimental to local communities. And this time around Mid Ulster Council has filed a submission saying that splitting the council area across FOUR constituencies would be in their view detrimental to the interest of local communities. That's not to say I reject all the proposed changes - Moving Magherafelt back northwards and linking up Omagh and Cookstown are fine by my books. Again though as I would point out this was how it was back before the 1997 review before the creation of Mid Ulster, a seats who's continued existence has elicited no complaints and frankly it's news to me that Mid Ulster is as roundly despised as a product of gerrymandering by it's inhabitants. Nilbop posted:The creation of Upper Bann and Blackwater shone a light on a much overlooked region south of the lough with critical infrastructural and agricultural needs between Dungannon and Craigavon. The Poradown-Craigavon-Lurgan conurbation is one of the most immediately recognizable built up areas in NI - to get Upper Bann and Blackwater to work you have to draw the boundary right on the edge of the urban core and exile various southern suburbs to an other constituency to give you enough wiggle room to stretch across into another county and another district council to capture some off, but not all, the wards making up Coalisland and Dungannon. The idea that the agricultural land between Dungannon and Craigavon is in anyway going to be the focus of that constituency when you have a giant urban region at it's core is frankly silly - Dungannon and Coalisland being downgraded from major towns and political centres in their respective constituencies to fringe areas in Upper Bann and Blackwater with outlying areas like the Clogher valley left adrift of their natural urban centre hardly does them justice imo. And it's not just the DUP that thought like this, the SDLP and Alliance and just about everyone who filed proposals with the boundary commission disagreed with the logic behind the seat. Nilbop posted:Strangford accurately addressed the reality that the communities BOTH sides of Strangford Lough are codependant and massively integrated. And yet the DUP's ludicrous proposals, inbetween cannibalizing Nationalist towns for Loyalist profit, has partitioned the Ards peninsula into it's own constituency, as if Strangford and Portaferry have no relationship, as if what decisions were made on the water in Whiterock and Killyleagh won't affect Greyabbey and Kircubbin, and as if Newtownards doesn't exist! Strangford and Portaferry weren't even in the same constituency in the first proposal you've been praising. And the Ards peninsula going into North Down again has broad consensus - North Down is under quota and it only has two options for expansion. It can't merge with Netwonards because you'd go over quota before you even combine all the urban wards. So your only options are either to cross the Craigantlet hills and add Dundonald to North Down, which was the solution proposed in the provisional report, or to take in the Ards Peninsula in it's entirety. So a four seat Belfast model excludes the Dundonald move automatically and leaves only the peninsula option and was thus the recommendation in the DUP and SDLP plans. But Alliance, who are strong supporters of a three seat Belfast, also proposed the same thing as they argued that Dundonald (and all of Castlereagh) is better placed in Strangford - the seat in which Dundonald sat until it was added to East Belfast. Also the commission ITSELF recommended the exact same thing back in 2012 in it's abandoned 16 seat model You seem to see this as an attack on Sylvia Hermon which is absolute nonsense as SHE SUPPORTS adding the Ards Peninsula to her constituency and is against adding Dundonald and laid out in her submission here. Furthermore the DUP actually proposed renaming the entire constituency as North Down and Ards Peninsula which the commission evidently did not agree with. Edit: Forgot to mention that I disagree entirely with the most recent proposals boundary in the Glens splitting Cushendall and Cushendun which I think can be easily remedied with a little bit of rearranging down in Jordanstown edit2: somehow managed to write Armagh when I meant Antrim there... kustomkarkommando fucked around with this message at 22:51 on Apr 10, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2018 22:51
|
|
|
Happy 20th anniversary of the GFA 
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2018 16:25
|
|
|
I'm not sure destroying it is a good way to celebrate it but what do I know.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2018 16:47
|
|
|
irlZaphod posted:I'm not sure destroying it is a good way to celebrate it but what do I know. Seems like a pretty standard form of Nordie celebration tbh
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2018 20:21
|
|
|
Its not a proper celebration unless somethings on fire
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2018 20:53
|
|
|
Starting to see the merits in a border wall.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2018 22:50
|
|
|
So in case anyone missed it, yesterday morning the Together For Yes campaign launched their Crowdfunding campaign, looking to raise €50,000 to pay for 5,000 posters around the country. By 11am, they had reached that goal. The goal was increased throughout the day, and it's currently standing at €400,000 - at the time of this post, 85% of that has been raised. You can donate to it here: https://togetherforyes.causevox.com/
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2018 13:09
|
|
|
irlZaphod posted:So in case anyone missed it, yesterday morning the Together For Yes campaign launched their Crowdfunding campaign, looking to raise €50,000 to pay for 5,000 posters around the country. By 11am, they had reached that goal. The goal was increased throughout the day, and it's currently standing at €400,000 - at the time of this post, 85% of that has been raised. Nice, donated. Get owned Catholics
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2018 13:26
|
|
|
WeAreTheRomans posted:Nice, donated. Same here. Appalling stuff going around.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2018 13:43
|
|
|
I should add that early on, John McGuirk went off on one on Twitter because of the number of donations marked as "Anonymous", and without any comment left. Because of that, a whole bunch of people started mentioning him in their comments, and even making multiple donations to do so.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2018 13:52
|
|
|
e:^^^^^^^^^^^^^loljulian assflange posted:Same here. Appalling stuff going around. I consider it a downpayment for my first of many Mandatory Gay Abortions. I hope there'll be some kind of bulk discount
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2018 13:56
|
|
|
From next year, forced abortions will be mandatory at every gay wedding. They will also take place inside churches. Hail Satan.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2018 14:08
|
|
|
Change the thread tag to the Gay Agenda one tia
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2018 14:24
|
|
|
Haha it's going for 500,000eur now 
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2018 15:32
|
|
|
I honestly don't have the strength to respond to kustomkarkommando anymore. I gave all my energy to the correspondance I've sent into the border commission, so I'll have to hope that's been a proper use of my time.WeAreTheRomans posted:Haha it's going for 500,000eur now And it's met it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2018 01:22
|
|
|
So yesterday some anti-choice lad from London stood outside Pantibar on Capel St with some signs featuring pictures of dead babies. Panti was very nice to him. https://twitter.com/PantiBliss/status/985905112324419584 https://twitter.com/PantiBliss/status/985947152059912194 There was a counter-protest with big signs to obscure the Anti-Choice ones. https://twitter.com/PantiBliss/status/985907654722760705
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 13:24
|
|
|
Pro-choice will lose and all Irish women with have their foreign abortions retroactively undone leading to massive overpopulation, food and water scarcity and the decay of Ireland into a papal state.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 17:13
|
|
|
I'm not sure what Panti's up to there, unless it's just to preach some radical centrist, "tolerate the intolerant" lame shite
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 18:09
|
|
|
WeAreTheRomans posted:I'm not sure what Panti's up to there, unless it's just to preach some radical centrist, "tolerate the intolerant" lame shite https://twitter.com/PantiBliss/status/984777299013890054 https://twitter.com/PantiBliss/status/985908851684847616
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 22:36
|
|
|
irlZaphod posted:I should add that early on, John McGuirk went off on one on Twitter because of the number of donations marked as "Anonymous", and without any comment left. Because of that, a whole bunch of people started mentioning him in their comments, and even making multiple donations to do so. That fat bastard is still around? I remember his mouthbreathing self soiling an event at Trinity during the 2008 elections - how has he not keeled over yet?
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 23:02
|
|
|
JohnCompany posted:That fat bastard is still around? I remember his mouthbreathing self soiling an event at Trinity during the 2008 elections - how has he not keeled over yet? e: This Phoenix article about him from 2007 is simply *chef's kiss* https://twitter.com/thephoenixmag/status/984775741282881536 irlZaphod fucked around with this message at 09:11 on Apr 18, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2018 09:09
|
|
|
I'd vaguely heard of McGuirk but learning that he is the failson Karl Rove of Irish student politics is hilarious. What a worthless turd.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2018 12:17
|
|
|
Edit: Unsolved. Any Irish movie/actor knowers who can help out here? https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=2177344&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=304 Katt fucked around with this message at 10:45 on Apr 21, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2018 17:39
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/dw_conflictzone/status/987286325031243776?s=21
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2018 13:19
|
|
|
Jesus he's a loving pastiche of a corrupt politician.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2018 15:13
|
|
|
Bertie for President is horrifying but that would kind of explain why he has started trying to get back into the papers - thought he was just angling to get readmitted into FF
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2018 18:26
|
|
|
Poor dirty Bertie. That money was just resting in his account
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2018 18:30
|
|
|
Have there been any decent attempts in recent years to continue recusiating Irish Gaelic? I wish I could find more music or films in gaelic.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2018 22:42
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:Have there been any decent attempts in recent years to continue recusiating Irish Gaelic? I wish I could find more music or films in gaelic. Culturally the motherfocloir guys are doing good work. Governmentally, meh. Also, recusiating?
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2018 23:10
|
|
|
WeAreTheRomans posted:Culturally the motherfocloir guys are doing good work. Governmentally, meh.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2018 23:16
|
|
|
There's plenty of Irish language music, the various projects around Lorcan macmathuna that blend traditionalism with avant garde stuff are probably the most interesting IMO but sean nos ain't for everyone
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2018 23:18
|
|
|
Tbh I have very mixed feelings about the language. I have no problem with it - it seems like a lovely language, but it is hugely political here in NI and I cannot be outside of that. I went to school at an extremely working class (second worse in NI at the time - I was there thanks to selective education, i developed late - seriously, my voice did not break until i was almost 16 years old) protestant school so there was no possibility of teaching there. There was one guy in my year who was catholic and he was "the catholic guy". Anyway, I mean I missed out on learning it at school and since leaving school I have a lot of poo poo to do by way of surviving. I will be honest, if I had the time to invest in achieving fluency in a language I would learn German because it'd make me more indispensable at work. I mean, I have done the Duolingo stuff and have picked up enough from friends to be able to pronounce Irish and recognise stuff, but I would have no idea how to string together a sentence in the language. I think the point I wanted to make is that there are a lot of people here in the north who are ready to embrace their Irish citizenship but are alienated from the language not by choice but because of circumstance, and up here that actually contributes to divisions and that really is the last loving thing we need :/
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2018 00:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 01:19 |
|
|
Grouchio posted:Irish Gaelic was nearly extinct by the late 19th century and efforts to revive it were first made soon before Ireland's independence, iirc. So I used the word recusitation. I have to ask again... recusitation? In 8th news, I'm continually heartened by the polls https://twitter.com/gavreilly/status/987982315845488640 the Yes vote might slip a little over time, but No isn't breaking 30 percent in any polling, and the IT poll suggested that the majority of undecideds could break for Yes as high as 2:1. Also, heartened by the very pro-choice tenor of the 1992 referendums, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_constitutional_referendums,_November_1992 I'm predicting a scary day that comes good in the end WeAreTheRomans fucked around with this message at 11:32 on Apr 22, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2018 09:31
|
|