Are people out of their minds ? WTF did anyone vote for Bagman Sean Galllagher ?

lucozader

I am deeply ashamed

Have the Irish people learned nothing?

Only in Ireland would a sleazoid like Gallagher get so many votes.

Are people out of their minds ?

FreudianSlippers

You realise he didn't win, right?

NIMAN

He would have, if it wasn't for the Front Line debate.

KELTICKNIGHTT

lucozader wrote: »

I am deeply ashamed

Have the Irish people learned nothing?

Only in Ireland would a sleazoid like Gallagher get so many votes.

Are people out of their minds ?

DO you miss Sean Gallagher or something ?

Think people more interested in the budget on Thursday to see how much it dig s more into there pockets.

KELTICKNIGHTT

NIMAN wrote: »

He would have, if it wasn't for the Front Line debate.

Think michael d would still have won regardless of debate.

brownswiss

Yes just think as you dig deeper and deeper in your pocket what you would have got for that money if you donated it to to Sean Gallagher and Fianna Fail.... You might even have got a diesel voucher for Christmas....

In case I forget please send a Christmas card to Martin with a big "THANKS".......

Remember he could yet be President of our 32 county Nation

Sierra Oscar

How DARE the people not vote as lucozader desires!

Ozymandius2011

In rural Ireland we don't trust the Dublin 4 media in the way the urban elites do. We know they look down their perfumed noses at the "Culchies".

Beyond that I wanted an Independent candidate even if their independence was less than what might be desired. I believe you are innocent until proven guilty and that SF's witness would not stand up to scrutiny in a court of law given his criminal-convictions. The use of the fake-twitter count added to my suspicion that Gallagher was being smeared like Parnell was with the notorious "Parnellism and Crime" article.

I was also uncomfortable with making an increasingly power-hungry govt e.g. Oireachtas Inquiries, all-powerful through control of all the levers of political power in the State including the Aras.

I appreciated the value of an entrepreneur - albeit one hard hit like most small businessmen by the recession - as a figurehead signalling to the world that Ireland is open for business. I was concerned that Higgins' outspoken attacks on US foreign policy - however well founded - would signal a cooling of relations with the US and a possible drop off in investment.

Lastly I resent being told how I "must" vote.

KELTICKNIGHTT

brownswiss wrote: »

Yes just think as you dig deeper and deeper in your pocket what you would have got for that money if you donated it to to Sean Gallagher and Fianna Fail.... You might even have got a diesel voucher for Christmas....

In case I forget please send a Christmas card to Martin with a big "THANKS".......

Remember he could yet be President of our 32 county Nation

Yes he could have been president of 26 counties of Ireland and visited northern Ireland the odd time but

Don't think sean g would have still won as michael d would have won an transfers

Zubeneschamali

Gallagher had a few things going for him:

People no longer want the parties to own the presidency. This was the reason Enda didn't want Mitchell: he's a pure FG party politician, and couldn't win. Gallagher had never run for office, and said he was an Independent.

Unlike Mary Davis, some percentage of people had seen Gallagher on the telly (not me, I must say). He had his Dragon's Den enterpeneur spoof as a basis for a campaign.

Those two factors were enough to get him to 15 or 20%.

Then, importantly, FF didn't run a candidate. That meant a core 20% FF vote was out there looking for a home, and they wouldn't vote Norris, Higgins or Mitchell in a fit. Gallagher declared that he was from the FF gene pool early on.

So with 15-20% plus half of the core FF vote, Seanie was up at 25-30, and had momentum, enough to suck in other independent minded voters who want to back a winner.

flatbackfour

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Gallagher had a few things going for him:

People no longer want the parties to own the presidency. This was the reason Enda didn't want Mitchell: he's a pure FG party politician, and couldn't win. Gallagher had never run for office, and said he was an Independent.

Unlike Mary Davis, some percentage of people had seen Gallagher on the telly (not me, I must say). He had his Dragon's Den enterpeneur spoof as a basis for a campaign.

Those two factors were enough to get him to 15 or 20%.

Then, importantly, FF didn't run a candidate. That meant a core 20% FF vote was out there looking for a home, and they wouldn't vote Norris, Higgins or Mitchell in a fit. Gallagher declared that he was from the FF gene pool early on.

So with 15-20% plus half of the core FF vote, Seanie was up at 25-30, and had momentum, enough to suck in other independent minded voters who want to back a winner.

Are people out of their minds ? WTF did anyone vote for Bagman Sean Galllagher ?

super_furry

It's over, move on.

flatbackfour

super_furry wrote: »

It's over, move on.

There is a malaise in this country, the condition that elects Jackie Healy Rae, Lowery, sons and daughters of **** politicians, cute hoors, re elects Fianna Fail and Bertie. Over half a million of our beautiful citizens decide to give one bagman fianna fail execuctive member and construction guru Seanie Gallaher their vote.

Move on? Tell that to the half a million bright sparks that have memories like gold fish.

super_furry

And your sollution is? What's wrong with accepting that people have a different view to yours? The majority of the people in the country do not and did not support Gallagher.

flatbackfour

super_furry wrote: »

And your sollution is? What's wrong with accepting that people have a different view to yours? The majority of the people in the country do not and did not support Gallagher.

No solution, just complete bewilderment.

RandolphEsq

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

In rural Ireland we don't trust the Dublin 4 media in the way the urban elites do. We know they look down their perfumed noses at the "Culchies".

Beyond that I wanted an Independent candidate even if their independence was less than what might be desired. I believe you are innocent until proven guilty and that SF's witness would not stand up to scrutiny in a court of law given his criminal-convictions. The use of the fake-twitter count added to my suspicion that Gallagher was being smeared like Parnell was with the notorious "Parnellism and Crime" article.

I was also uncomfortable with making an increasingly power-hungry govt e.g. Oireachtas Inquiries, all-powerful through control of all the levers of political power in the State including the Aras.

I appreciated the value of an entrepreneur - albeit one hard hit like most small businessmen by the recession - as a figurehead signalling to the world that Ireland is open for business. I was concerned that Higgins' outspoken attacks on US foreign policy - however well founded - would signal a cooling of relations with the US and a possible drop off in investment.

Lastly I resent being told how I "must" vote.

With good reason; they have a small-town, parochial mentality and cannot see how Ireland fits into the world such is the small-minded context in which they were brought up. City folks are far more intelligent and clued in than their simple culchie cousins.

FreudianSlippers

RandolphEsq wrote: »

With good reason; they have a small-town, parochial mentality and cannot see how Ireland fits into the world such is the small-minded context in which they were brought up. City folks are far more intelligent and clued in than their simple culchie cousins.

Can't decide whether you're being sarcastic or not

Well played.

jimmycrackcorm

lucozader wrote: »

I am deeply ashamed

Have the Irish people learned nothing?

Only in Ireland would a sleazoid like Gallagher get so many votes.

Are people out of their minds ?

Do please enlighten us as to why we shouldn't have voted for him.....

Ozymandius2011

All the parties have "bagmen" it's just that FF accumulated more of them for being in power longer. Remember the Eithne Fitzgerald letters in 1996 inviting business to pay £100 a plate to meet Labour MInisters, for which she and Quinn had to apologise to the Dail. FG spent €3 million inn the GE campaign but according to SIPO hasn't declared a single donation since 1997. Where are they getting their money from - thin air? Some very naive Dublin 4 types on this thread letting their counter-culchie sentiment getting in the way of their good sense.

Liam Byrne

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

In rural Ireland we don't trust the Dublin 4 media in the way the urban elites do. We know they look down their perfumed noses at the "Culchies".

I'm confused. Are you pretending that culchies fell for the "independent" lies ?

Because that's overly simplistic by far.

The malaise that has people voting for deceitful characters infects all types from all walks of life - whether it's Dubs voting for Ahern or so-called "culchies" voting for Lowry & Healy-Rae, it infects the whole of society and the rest of us have to put up with the consequences.

Ozymandius2011

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I'm confused. Are you pretending that culchies fell for the "independent" lies ?

Because that's overly simplistic by far.

The malaise that has people voting for deceitful characters infects all types from all walks of life - whether it's Dubs voting for Ahern or so-called "culchies" voting for Lowry & Healy-Rae, it infects the whole of society and the rest of us have to put up with the consequences.

I think that some people are so conditioned to listening to Tribunals that they have become paranoid about trigger-words like "envelope", and "no recollection", thereby assuming they refer to the same context as in the Tribunals vis a vis certain former FF Ministers when in fact that may not be the case. If you're sending a cheque in the post (which may have been how the Morgan cheque actually got to FF) then it's pretty sensible to place it inside an envelope for reasons that are not outside the realms of understanding.

irishdude11

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

I think that some people are so conditioned to listening to Tribunals that they have become paranoid about trigger-words like "envelope", and "no recollection", thereby assuming they refer to the same context as in the Tribunals vis a vis certain former FF Ministers when in fact that may not be the case. If you're sending a cheque in the post (which may have been how the Morgan cheque actually got to FF) then it's pretty sensible to place it inside an envelope for reasons that are not outside the realms of understanding.

The Bagman Gallagher soliciting a €5K cheque from a criminal for the political party that destroyed the country's economy. Just another day at the office for the Bagman.

Ozymandius2011

irishdude11 wrote: »

The Bagman Gallagher soliciting a €5K cheque from a criminal for the political party that destroyed the country's economy. Just another day at the office for the Bagman.

It's true that the party played a decisive role in destroying the economy, but that doesn't make party footsoldiers responsible for that. The fact that the Irish problem has been replicated in Portugal, Greece, Spain and Italy suggests an important international-dimension to the crisis. The Single Currency is at least 50% responsible for what has happened by pumping up inflation with an excess of cheap-credit imposed by the ECB. We had inflation under control before we joined the Euro.

It's also easy to forget that at the time of the 2008 fundraiser, FF were on 56% in the polls. If the Irish people couldn't look into their crystal balls then neither could SG.

And SG says he didn't know Morgan was a criminal.

charlemont

RandolphEsq wrote: »

With good reason; they have a small-town, parochial mentality and cannot see how Ireland fits into the world such is the small-minded context in which they were brought up. City folks are far more intelligent and clued in than their simple culchie cousins.

I agree with most of above but its too easy to say its a rural urban divide, The reality is its blurred somewhat. Some people would vote for SG just because they think he is getting a raw deal of the media, Personally I think the media were fair with him.

Ozymandius2011

charlemont wrote: »

I agree with most of above but its too easy to say its a rural urban divide, The reality is its blurred somewhat. Some people would vote for SG just because they think he is getting a raw deal of the media, Personally I think the media were fair with him.

There was nothing remotely fair about reading out a fake tweet as factual in front of 900,000 viewers, or packing a studio audience with supporters of the other candidates.

Arianna_26

I asked myself the same question when I watched the results, in my opinion people must have thought he was the victim of a vicious smear campaign orchestrated by Sinn Fein and felt sorry for him and so voted for him.

That's the only explanation I can think of - I didn't vote for him, he always seemed a bit shifty to me.

youcrazyjesus!

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

There was nothing remotely fair about reading out a fake tweet as factual in front of 900,000 viewers, or packing a studio audience with supporters of the other candidates.

The 2nd of those things didn't happen.

GarMani

Gallagher rejoined FF from 2007-2011 when we all knew they had the country ruined...that makes him evil, stupid or BOTH. A friend said "ah maybe he joined for business reasons". You don't sleep with the devil just to boost your business. Arms dealers, polluters, speculators do.
He denied FF ruined the country: liar or thick.
He denied he was at the core of FF: pimping Biffo and Bertie for 5 grand a ride...liar.

It baffles me that people voted for a 14 year plague of FF, switched to FG: different sides of the same turd. They're now not happy with FG so hundreds of thousands voted for the Independent Fianna Fáil candidate. Remember the Healy Raes are Independent Fianna Fáil too.

There are more than 2 parties people.

thebman

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

There was nothing remotely fair about reading out a fake tweet as factual in front of 900,000 viewers, or packing a studio audience with supporters of the other candidates.

The fake tweet wouldn't make any difference if Gallagher was telling the truth initially.

He should have stuck to his story if he had nothing to fear.

All of a sudden he knew a lot more than he was letting on though and that is what sunk him.

Ozymandius2011

thebman wrote: »

The fake tweet wouldn't make any difference if Gallagher was telling the truth initially.

He should have stuck to his story if he had nothing to fear.

All of a sudden he knew a lot more than he was letting on though and that is what sunk him.

Well maybe he genuinely didn't recollect events. We still don't have proof that he ever handled the cheque. It could have been sent in the post. And we don't have any proof he knew of Morgan's criminal past. And that criminal past itself undermines Morgan's credibility. Certainly in a court-case it would.

Sorry youcrazyjesus! but there is no way 40% of that audience were leaning towards Gallagher on that show even at the beginning. All the hostile questions were directed at him. The fix was in, and the license-fee paid for it. That woman had sure done her homework for a neutral voter.

It's what Hillary called "Gotcha Politics".

Liam Byrne

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

There was nothing remotely fair about reading out a fake tweet as factual in front of 900,000 viewers, or packing a studio audience with supporters of the other candidates.

Would you care to provide proof of the last statement above? Because otherwise it comes across as the same type of paranoia that you supposedly object to in terms of the word "envelope".

You had a point in relation to that word, but since Kenny pointed out at the start that EVERY candidate had their supporters there, the bolded bit above is 100% waffle; the fact is that every candidate had six-sevenths of an audience against them.

Re the "fake tweet" - Gallagher was there and could have refuted it outright and then NOT changed his story, in which case he wouldn't have come a cropper......in general that's what happens when people tell the truth - they don't need to change their story.

So, going back to your points re being associated with Ahern, there's why - telling one story when it suits one agenda and an alternate story later when it suits another agenda, and hoping the electorate are fools with short memories.

Ozymandius2011

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Would you care to provide proof of the last statement above? Because otherwise it comes across as the same type of paranoia that you supposedly object to in terms of the word "envelope".

You had a point in relation to that word, but since Kenny pointed out at the start that EVERY candidate had their supporters there, the bolded bit above is 100% waffle; the fact is that every candidate had six-sevenths of an audience against them.

Re the "fake tweet" - Gallagher was there and could have refuted it outright and then NOT changed his story, in which case he wouldn't have come a cropper......in general that's what happens when people tell the truth - they don't need to change their story.

So, going back to your points re being associated with Ahern, there's why - telling one story when it suits one agenda and an alternate story later when it suits another agenda, and hoping the electorate are fools with short memories.

There is a world of difference between a donation to a political party and a donation that is pocketed by an individual.

FreudianSlippers

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

It's true that the party played a decisive role in destroying the economy, but that doesn't make party footsoldiers responsible for that. The fact that the Irish problem has been replicated in Portugal, Greece, Spain and Italy suggests an important international-dimension to the crisis. The Single Currency is at least 50% responsible for what has happened by pumping up inflation with an excess of cheap-credit imposed by the ECB. We had inflation under control before we joined the Euro.

It's also easy to forget that at the time of the 2008 fundraiser, FF were on 56% in the polls. If the Irish people couldn't look into their crystal balls then neither could SG.

And SG says he didn't know Morgan was a criminal.

I'm sorry, the ECB did not impose cheap credit.

Liam Byrne

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Would you care to provide proof of the last statement above? Because otherwise it comes across as the same type of paranoia that you supposedly object to in terms of the word "envelope".

You had a point in relation to that word, but since Kenny pointed out at the start that EVERY candidate had their supporters there, the bolded bit above is 100% waffle; the fact is that every candidate had six-sevenths of an audience against them.

Re the "fake tweet" - Gallagher was there and could have refuted it outright and then NOT changed his story, in which case he wouldn't have come a cropper......in general that's what happens when people tell the truth - they don't need to change their story.

So, going back to your points re being associated with Ahern, there's why - telling one story when it suits one agenda and an alternate story later when it suits another agenda, and hoping the electorate are fools with short memories.

There is a world of difference between a donation to a political party and a donation that is pocketed by an individual.

So no proof of your claim then ? Or are you refusing to answer (another regular FF tactic when they are caught out with their lies)

I don't know why you posted what you did, because no-one suggested otherwise; were you hoping that you could make it look like I suggested otherwise ?

I'll try again - do you have any proof that the audience was stacked unfairly ?

If not I'd suggest retracting that claim pronto.

Zulu

It'll be over once a full and thorough audit of his accounts is completed.
Pfffit, €80+K directors loan.

Crooked sham.

anymore

lucozader wrote: »

I am deeply ashamed

Have the Irish people learned nothing?

Only in Ireland would a sleazoid like Gallagher get so many votes.

Are people out of their minds ?

Presumably because they preferred him to the others ?

Mr.Micro

Originally Posted by Ozymandius2011
There was nothing remotely fair about reading out a fake tweet as factual in front of 900,000 viewers, or packing a studio audience with supporters of the other candidates.

Are you missing the point deliberately? Regardless of the tweet origin....it became credible by SG reactions and response. It showed he had something to hide. His loss, and the benefit to the voters that he was exposed for what he was, a grubby FF bagman. It was not only the tweet that got him but the woman questioner was just as impressive? Was that unfair as well. Sad man could not handle the truth.

Was it fair that SG pretended he was an independent candidate? Did he therefore mislead the voters? Should have been upfront then if he wanted fairness? Good riddance.

Ozymandius2011

Liam Byrne wrote: »

So no proof of your claim then ? Or are you refusing to answer (another regular FF tactic when they are caught out with their lies)

I don't know why you posted what you did, because no-one suggested otherwise; were you hoping that you could make it look like I suggested otherwise ?

I'll try again - do you have any proof that the audience was stacked unfairly ?

If not I'd suggest retracting that claim pronto.

Journalists have said that the audience seemed stacked against them. I heard this on Newstalk recently (either Shane Coleman, Pat Leahy or Harry McGee said this). The audience was extremely hostile and there is no way it could have been representatice of what the polls at that time - pre Morgan-revelations - were saying. Ultimately it is RTE that decides what questions are posed to which candidate, and having sat through the entire show, there was nothing but unrelenting hostility coming from that audience.

An example of the bias: when SG was asked for his position on the Oireachtas Inquiries referendum, he refused to take a position because the President is supposed to be above politics. and was jeered and booed. When MDH was asked the same and give an almost identical answer, there was no negative reaction from the audience. That is bias pure and simple. A member of SG's campaign has made a complaint about the fake tweet to the BCI and Tommy O'Brien on politics.ie, who is apparently an experienced political newspaper journalist has said RTE may well be in serious trouble over this. And bear in mind he is a govt supporter.

Liam Byrne

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

Journalists have said that the audience seemed stacked against them.

There's a difference between that and an outright claim that it WAS, which is what you claimed earlier. It's second-hand info as well; odd that you choose to believe THAT second-hand info in particular.

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

I heard this on Newstalk recently (either Shane Coleman, Pat Leahy or Harry McGee said this).

So it made enough of an impact to make you believe it, but not for you to remember who said it ? That FF amnesia tactic comes in really handy!

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

The audience was extremely hostile and there is no way it could have been representatice of what the polls at that time - pre Morgan-revelations - were saying.

It was certainly representative of what I was thinking pre revelations.

Ultimately it is RTE that decides what questions are posed to which candidate, and having sat through the entire show, there was nothing but unrelenting hostility coming from that audience.

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

An example of the bias: when SG was asked for his position on the Oireachtas Inquiries referendum, he refused to take a position because the President is supposed to be above politics. and was jeered and booed.

Oireachtas enquiries have centred significantly on his party colleagues, so it is perfectly understandable that his stance would be viewed as questionable.

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

A member of SG's campaign has made a complaint about the fake tweet to the BCI and Tommy O'Brien on politics.ie, who is apparently an experienced political newspaper journalist has said RTE may well be in serious trouble over this.

Gallagher was there and was given a chance to refute; he failed miserably. If someone has the right to reply then - AFAIK - there is no case to answer.

delos

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

...And SG says he didn't know Morgan was a criminal.

This I find one of his more outrageous claims. Morgan was/is a major part of the buisiness world in the border area and a major player in the GAA (one of SG's personal easy money streams) yet he had no idea about this major event in Morgan's past?

delos

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

An example of the bias: when SG was asked for his position on the Oireachtas Inquiries referendum, he refused to take a position because the President is supposed to be above politics. and was jeered and booed. When MDH was asked the same and give an almost identical answer, there was no negative reaction from the audience. That is bias pure and simple.

IIRC MDH answered the question on the second or third asking whereas SG stood there sweating, ducking and diving. MDH had the gumption to know that he needed to answer the question, even though he was uncomfortable with it. SG looked like someone who had been told by his backroom staff to keep his mouth shut as much as possible and express no opinion what so ever.

You can call it bias if you like, I call it an audience who could spot a spoofer who was just not presidential material....

vallo

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

Sorry youcrazyjesus! but there is no way 40% of that audience were leaning towards Gallagher on that show even at the beginning. All the hostile questions were directed at him. The fix was in, and the license-fee paid for it. That woman had sure done her homework for a neutral voter.

What? Are you seriously suggesting that 40% of the audience should have been pro-SG? On what planet would that have been fair? Every candidate had 6/7 of the audience against them. It was scrupulously fair.
And thank God that Glenna whats-her-name had done her homework. I care a lot less about the 5K cheque lies than I do about SG sinking taxpayer's money into a loss making R+D vehicle for his profit-making smarthomes business. Loss making due to high salaries and exorbitant rent which he benefited from, I might add.
And as for the fake tweet. What would have happened if Mary Davis or David Norris had been confronted with a fake tweet to say that they had collected a 5K cheque from a crook. No doubt they would have been able to categorically deny it. Something SG couldn't do because he has probably collected so many cheques that he has lost track of it all! The truth is simple. Lies are complicated and liars eventually get tripped up.

ildaite

I don't see anything wrong with the original post. All the OP was saying is that he was baffled by how many people voted for Gallagher, despite evidence of some questionable conduct. I have to say I share his/ her surprise.

Ozymandius2011

vallo wrote: »

What? Are you seriously suggesting that 40% of the audience should have been pro-SG? On what planet would that have been fair? Every candidate had 6/7 of the audience against them. It was scrupulously fair.
And thank God that Glenna whats-her-name had done her homework. I care a lot less about the 5K cheque lies than I do about SG sinking taxpayer's money into a loss making R+D vehicle for his profit-making smarthomes business. Loss making due to high salaries and exorbitant rent which he benefited from, I might add.
And as for the fake tweet. What would have happened if Mary Davis or David Norris had been confronted with a fake tweet to say that they had collected a 5K cheque from a crook. No doubt they would have been able to categorically deny it. Something SG couldn't do because he has probably collected so many cheques that he has lost track of it all! The truth is simple. Lies are complicated and liars eventually get tripped up.

Early on in the programme it was clear that Higgins had more like 6/7s of the audience for him right from the roars of applause when he claimed to be an 'Independent voice'. The pattern was that Higgins got roars of applause from most of the audience while SG got boos and jeers practically the second he opened his mouth. RTE csn clsim to be impartial just like they claimed the 'SF tweet' was accurate snd that turned out to be hogwash.

How many jobs has Higgins ever created in his life? Zero. Many of us wanted a President that could contribute to the recovery.

Billy86

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

In rural Ireland we don't trust the Dublin 4 media in the way the urban elites do. We know they look down their perfumed noses at the "Culchies".

Wait, who is looking down whose nose, again?

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

Sorry youcrazyjesus! but there is no way 40% of that audience were leaning towards Gallagher on that show even at the beginning.

That is because there were more than 2.5 candidates running. It's not that complicated.

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

How many jobs has Higgins ever created in his life? Zero. Many of us wanted a President that could contribute to the recovery.

How would Gallagher have used his presidential role to create jobs, then?

Ozymandius2011

Billy86 wrote: »

Wait, who is looking down whose nose, again?


That is because there were more than 2.5 candidates running. It's not that complicated.

How would Gallagher have used his presidential role to create jobs, then?

The same way Mary McAleese has with her trade-missions around the world. But with SG it would be more credible because as a businessman he knows better what needs to be done to reduce bureaucratic burdens and costs that get in the way of job creation for business. As such he would have been a useful advisor to the Irish govt, which largely consists of teachers, barristers and publicans - not exactly tne kind of people you want running an economy. The present govt were elected not so much because they electorate are mad asbout them but rather they were rejecting FF. And before you say he was only a small businessman yes but then that is where most Irish workers are employed - in companies with 10 or fewer employees.

Zulu

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

But with SG it would be more credible because as a businessman he knows better...

A business man that can't keep track of €80+K? And takes massive directors loans. No, he wouldn't know better. And no he wouldn't be more credible.

... not exactly tne kind of people you want running an economy.

I don't want shady business men behind dodgy deal & improper accounts running the economy.

And before you say he was only a small businessman yes but....

I'm not going to say he was a small businessman, I'm going to say he was a DODGY, COWBOY, business man. Exactly the kind of charlatan I'd rather see the back of.

FreudianSlippers

Billy86 wrote: »

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

In rural Ireland we don't trust the Dublin 4 media in the way the urban elites do. We know they look down their perfumed noses at the "Culchies".

Wait, who is looking down whose nose, again?

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

Sorry youcrazyjesus! but there is no way 40% of that audience were leaning towards Gallagher on that show even at the beginning.

That is because there were more than 2.5 candidates running. It's not that complicated.

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

How many jobs has Higgins ever created in his life? Zero. Many of us wanted a President that could contribute to the recovery.

How would Gallagher have used his presidential role to create jobs, then?

Aras would have been like a mega dragons den!

Liam Byrne

How many jobs has Higgins ever created in his life? Zero.

:rolleyes: I believe all of those working in TG4 and related operations, as well as those employed in film, would disagree completely, and rightly so; it's been quite a while since I've seen such an inaccurate claim as that on boards.

toxicity234

lucozader wrote: »

I am deeply ashamed

Have the Irish people learned nothing?

Only in Ireland would a sleazoid like Gallagher get so many votes.

Are people out of their minds ?

The only thing I Deeply Ashamed about is comment like this.
Gallagher went from 12% or so to 40% after the first few debates. That meant that people watch the debate and thought he was the best candidate.
That what people should do in an Election and Listen to the policy, the information and Candidate and when new information came to light some people change there mind.
If you ashamed. Well, them you a small minded person who thinks his opinions are more important than other peoples and you should be ashamed of yourself.
If you don’t like Democracy then move somewhere where you don’t have live with it as a Political system.

KELTICKNIGHTT

I see the anti gallagher dribble continues no surprise.
higgins,mitchell and mc guinness had there party support behind them,
Some making a big deal about Gallagher is bollix
If you don't like ff , that's your problem and no one else's.
gallagher was connected with ff,so what,so was the winner.

I hope gallagher runs again,that way people on boards can cry more and give them some more to talk about.
I has to be said ,it was the dirtiest election in a long time,maybe
everyone was talking out there frustration what's gong on in Ireland currently
and another thing
Sean Gallagher got the votes because of threads like this and the pickings of candidates where poor over all.