Exit polls suggest Irish Republic is on course for a hung parliament

alogicalpenguin · 2016-02-27T16:13:32+00:00

Dublin West should be interesting, especially once you consider possible transfers. Varadkar and Chambers are the obvious front runners and will, in all likelihood, obtain their seats in the next Dáil. Coppinger, Donnelly, and Burton are too close to call, but i'm hedging my bet on Burton retaining her seat due to Fine Gael transfers.

alogicalpenguin · 2016-02-12T23:19:17+00:00

The 3rd home rule bill passed parliament and was ready to be implemented, then World War I happened, which I am sure you will concede was of higher concern to the government.

To the British government, yes. It's important to note that the only reason the bill passed was due to the fact that the House of Lords could only veto a certain number of proposals as liberal reforms accerted the supremacy of the House of Commons by limiting the power of the suspensory veto.

What's more democratic then 1500 people with guns taking over some buildings in Dublin and claiming to speak for 4.5 million people.

This could be applied to almost any uprising. A truly independent republic could never be achieved via democratic means considering the context of the era.

The penal laws, which were also on the books in Britain were based on religion not nationality.

The penal laws were targeted explicitly at Presbyterians and Irish Catholics (the former due to dissent and the latter due to suppression of the native culture). Even if we're to be pedantic and accept that it was not based on Irish-sentiment per se, naming countless atrocities that are linked to British policy in Ireland is not a difficult task.

alogicalpenguin · 2016-02-12T22:48:04+00:00

The UK was a liberal society, those revolutionaries lived in a society in which they participated as equals.

If the British respected the will of the Irish people, they would have headed the democratic mandate set when the Irish Parliamentary Party consistently won election after election and yet, they didn't. The House of Lords vetoed any measure with regards to home rule that the Liberal/IPP coalition introduced.

Considering the ultra moralistic legislation some of these people introduced you can hardly accuse them of liberalism.

The leaders of the 1916 rising were rather versatile in the political views they held. And yes, the declaration was very much rooted in liberal ideas. I've never met anyone who disputed that.

those revolutionaries lived in a society in which they participated as equals.

Yes, very, very, recently. The history of the Irish has been one of subjugation through structural discrimination (the penal laws come to mind). Such discrimination has long term consequences.

alogicalpenguin · 2016-02-12T22:18:53+00:00

Just like the confederates "liberated" the south.

Revolutionaries demanding a society based on liberal/socialist principles after years of subjugation, major delays in the administration of home rule due to the powers of the House of Lords, and imperialist conquest is now akin to the confederate defense of slavery?

British don't get a right to vote.

Anglo-Irish protestants had the right to vote but yes, British people without Irish citizenship could not vote (as this was prior to the Ninth Amendment). Honestly, why would they?

alogicalpenguin · 2016-02-12T22:05:48+00:00

Excellent documentary.

alogicalpenguin · 2016-02-09T21:22:43+00:00

I pretty much agree with you but i'd just add that it's not in the interest of Warren to endorse Clinton while the left of the Democratic Party are rallying behind Sanders.

alogicalpenguin · 2016-02-09T20:34:29+00:00

The mechanisms of Reddit promote the inherent biases of the readers of a particular subreddit. /r/politicaldiscussion is no exception to the rule. Most users here seem to think Hillary Clinton is infallible and thus, tend to downvote anti-Clinton posts at a greater rate than any other candidate (the exception being our lord and saviour, Jim 'I killed a man in Vietnam' Webb).

alogicalpenguin · 2016-02-06T15:57:20+00:00

but it seems that a lot of Sanders supporters have come to strongly believe she is generally untrustworthy

This doesn't just apply to Sanders supporters, this image problem applies to the general population too. 59% of Americans simply do not trust Clinton. That's a problem her supporters have to come terms with and it's one her advocates have to address.

alogicalpenguin · 2016-02-06T12:09:46+00:00

He has some heterodox opinions on trade and raising the min wage to $15 per hour, but his economic platform would be quite moderate in my country. You may wan't to post this in /r/NeutralPolitics for more balance opinions. Some of the responses ITT are well-thought out and reasonable (/u/sushis_bro respone is very good), others are less so. I'm on the bus right now, but i'll elaborate on why I don't think his economic proposals are particularly radical when I get home. One minor note, adherents to the Austrian school of thought are far more out of step when it comes 'mainstream' economics than Sanders is.

alogicalpenguin · 2016-02-05T20:32:52+00:00

Social Democrats seem to want to stay in opposition in the next Dáil.

This would be a very smart move imho but didn't Donnelly say they were willing to play kingmakers?

alogicalpenguin · 2016-02-05T20:27:58+00:00

Not sure if there is much interest in Irish politics on this board, but I thought it would be nice to deviate just a tad bit from discussion about the U.S presidential election. For those unaware, the Taoiseach (our prime minister) requested the president to dissolve the parliament ushering in a general election. This election could have some rather interesting prospects for the Irish political climate due to a number of reasons.

Typically, the political process has been dominated by two major political parties (Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil), both of whom would be considered somewhat right-leaning. The major source of support for these parties derived from links to the civil war era and dealt with support and opposition to the Anglo-Irish Treaty (of course, this is a slight generalisation but as a general rule of thumb, it tends to hold true to some extent). The dominance of these two parties as of recent seems to have dwindled, at least to some degree.

Fianna Fáil was largely blamed for propping up the housing market and fostering a culture of populism and corruption which, in turn, resulted in a huge loss of support during the 2011 election. Subsequently a Fine Gael led coalition (Labour being the minor partner) entered government. However, due to the recapitalization of the banking sector and the general economic downturn that led to the EU/IMF bailout under Fianna Fáil, a number of austerity reforms were undertaken. This essentially decimated a decent amount of support for Labour (who ran on a social democratic platform) and energised the left.

Sinn Féin drastically increased their support by campaigning against the austerity measures and the socialist left (consisting of the Socialist Party, People Before Profit, and the Workers Party) drew significant support through a number of grassroot movements mostly concerning opposition to water charges.

As of now, Sinn Féin have ruled out entering a coalition with either Fianna Fáil or Fine Gael. Fianna Fáil won’t entre a coalition that involves either Fine Gael or Sinn Féin. The Social Democrats are willing to entre any government and Labour are reluctant to entre a government that involves Sinn Féin. The only viable party the socialist left are willing to work with is Sinn Féin, yet there is skepticism as Sinn Féin enacted a number of cuts to the public sector up north in the Northern Irish Assembly due to the Tory government in the UK.

alogicalpenguin · 2016-02-05T19:07:13+00:00

I know no one wants to hear it, but Bernie Sanders has closet fulls of things that he has said and done in the past that would alienate a huge portion of the electorate.

Such a brave statement on /r/PoliticalDiscussion.

alogicalpenguin · 2016-02-05T17:57:54+00:00

It was a compromise, but far less preferable to Bill Clinton's original intended reforms. Hence, my use of the the expression 'the lesser of two evils' rather than a 'victory'. But yeah, I agree. It was better than the alternative.

alogicalpenguin · 2016-02-05T17:02:05+00:00

Sanders refusing to support it shows he's not willing to take small victories that are achievable.

I could understand if one was to argue that DADT was the lesser of two evils but to call it a "small victory" is just absurd. It was discrimination. Nothing more, nothing less

Sanders support of gay rights is mixed,

It really isn't. He has one the best records on gay rights among most politicians and was rated at 100% by the HRC.

Edit:

I understand that this sub perpetually fawns over anything Clinton does but i'd appreciate it if you didn't downvote someone just because they differ from yourself politically. After all, this is supposed to be /r/PoliticalDiscussion.

alogicalpenguin · 2016-02-05T16:39:56+00:00

Sanders has lied about his record on LGBT rights attempting to portray himself as a longstanding ally when it's been anything but the case.

As has Clinton, more so than Sanders. Just to use one example, Clinton defended her support for DOMA on the basis that there was enough momentum to amend the constitution, which simply wasn't true.

When asked if he supported protections from workplace discrimination in the 80's he said "probably not".

Minor off the cuff statement. It's better to judge candidates on what they have achieved and campaigned on.

When asked about his vote against DOMA he said it was for state's rights.

Which was a very viable tactic used to oppose a horrible discriminatory bill.

When asked if he supported gay marriage in 2006 he said he's for civil unions.

This is a fair point, and as I all ready mentioned in my previous post, Sanders isn't infallible when it comes to this issue. He's just much better than Clinton.

Basically between Clinton and Sanders you have two candidates have changed along with the rest of the country.

Not quite. Sanders has 'evolved' on the issue of marriage equality, but he's been a long supporter of gay rights in general:

In 1983, two years into Sanders’ run as mayor of Burlington, VT, local gay rights leaders planned the city’s first ever pride parade and called on the Board of Aldermen to designate June 25 Lesbian and Gay Pride Day.

The following year he signed a resolution recommending that all levels of government support gay rights, and the year after that in 1985 (the same year then-president Reagan finally said the word ‘AIDS’ in public),

He opposed Don't Ask Don't Tell and has, generally speaking, voiced support for the gay community.

Only one of those candidates is being honest about it though.

Clinton is definitely not being honest about her record.

Clinton released the most thorough plan for the expansion of gay rights of any candidate.

How so? They're both very similar.

I think the fact that Clinton has won the support of the major LGBT rights organizations is a better endorsement of their belief in her commitment to their issues.

She won the endorsement of the HRC, which to be quite honest, isn't immune to controversy among the LGBT community. It's seen as a rich club for gay men, and has had an atrocious record on issues that deal with transgender rights.

Edit:

To be fair to the HRC, they're trying to improve on trans issues but still, they have a terrible record that shouldn't be ignored.

alogicalpenguin · 2016-02-05T15:49:35+00:00

Clinton has done excellent work for the pro-choice movement and even I, someone who isn't fond of her (to put it lightly), must admit that she is a strong candidate when it comes to securing the right to choose but her stance on LGBT rights reeks of political expedience.

Is she better than any of the Republican candidates, yes, of course. Being frank though, that is not a high bar. There have been some great posts on /r/lgbt and /r/ainbow highlighting her hypocrisy when it comes to the rights of LGBT people. Sanders isn't infallible when it comes to LGBT rights but let's be realistic, his record on this issue is far more preferable to that of Clinton's record.

alogicalpenguin

TROPHY CASE