Wouldn't Pearse Doherty make a great Taoiseach

1gunsnroses

Wouldn't it be great for Ireland in the future to have a leader like Pearse Doherty. A man who is for the people

Seth Brundle

1gunsnroses wrote: »

A man who is for the people

A man who is what exactly for the people?

drunkmonkey

He looks knackered. He'd be best off buy a little beach bar somewhere.

blackcard

1gunsnroses wrote: »

Wouldn't it be great for Ireland in the future to have a leader like Pearse Doherty. A man who is for the people

Seriously?

J Mysterio

drunkmonkey wrote: »

He looks knackered. He'd be best off buy a little beach bar somewhere.

I agree he looks knackered. He is a brilliant politician. Clever and seems a good guy, empathetic. Probably knackered from having to constantly debate and never be actually listened to.

1gunsnroses

kbannon wrote: »

A man who is what exactly for the people?

For the people meaning that he listens to the people and sticks with the people

1gunsnroses

blackcard wrote: »

Seriously?

YES

mickdw

He is all bluff with no solid policy.... so yes he would fit right in.

L1011

1gunsnroses wrote: »

For the people meaning that he listens to the people and sticks with the people

By virtue of never having been in power. His party has a particularly poor record of listening or sticking with their voters where they are in government.

FreudianSlippers

J Mysterio wrote: »

I agree he looks knackered. He is a brilliant politician. Clever and seems a good guy, empathetic. Probably knackered from having to constantly debate and never be actually listened to.

When that much nonsense comes out of one's mouth, it's difficult to be listened to.

1gunsnroses wrote: »

For the people meaning that he listens to the people and sticks with the people

I am a "people" and he doesn't listen or stick with me.

Seth Brundle

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I am a "people" and he doesn't listen or stick with me.

If memory serves me correctly, you have a job. Why on earth would he listen to you?

FrancieBrady

mickdw wrote: »

He is all bluff .

How do you know he is 'bluff'? Has he been in power?

constance tench

kbannon wrote: »

If memory serves me correctly, you have a job. Why on earth would he listen to you?

Nice display of classism there... well done.

mickdw

FrancieBrady wrote: »

How do you know he is 'bluff'? Has he been in power?

No he has not been in power. He didn't want to be either because then what would do - he would be found out.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

FrancieBrady

mickdw wrote: »

No he has not been in power. He didn't want to be either because then what would do - he would be found out.

So he hasn't been in power i.e. his bluff hasn't been called yet.

Seth Brundle

constance tench wrote: »

Nice display of classism there... well done.

You're very welcome.
I actually wasn't expecting to see a compliment, so it's so nice to see good manners these days!
The cynic in me had thought someone would have objected to my crude attempt at indicating SF's overt populism and leanings towards the self-entitled but you restored my faith.

mickdw

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So he hasn't been in power i.e. his bluff hasn't been called yet.

For me, his line of crap doesn't exactly require the rigours of government in order to see through it.

homerjay2005

1gunsnroses wrote: »

For the people meaning that he listens to the people and sticks with the people

listens to people who want to run the country into the ground and destroy our economy you mean?

Pawwed Rig

Were I forced to select a SF taoiseach then I would probably choose Pearse. At the same time I would enrole in German lessons.

FrancieBrady

mickdw wrote: »

For me, his line of crap doesn't exactly require the rigours of government in order to see through it.

You cannot say that someone is 'bluffing' with any accuracy unless you call the bluff.

FrancieBrady

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Were I forced to select a SF taoiseach then I would probably choose Pearse. At the same time I would enrole in German lessons.

Way ahead of you on the German lessons, I've been doing them since just before the Troika arrived.

A Little Pony

Surprised he hasn't tried a coup to get rid of the maniac Gerry Adams and any of the other IRA stooges. Until he has the balls to do that, Sinn Fein don't stand any chance of being the party of government.

FreudianSlippers

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Way ahead of you on the German lessons, I've been doing them since just before the Troika arrived.

Did you only study when they actually came, or are you saying you studied throughout the Programme?
Either way you've studied somewhere between 4 months and 3 years - I bet you're fluent now! :rolleyes:

FreudianSlippers

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You cannot say that someone is 'bluffing' with any accuracy unless you call the bluff.

SF's economic policy in the South is entirely a bluff - it's nonsensical and cannot be worked in any way shape or form.

FrancieBrady

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Did you only study when they actually came, or are you saying you studied throughout the Programme?
Either way you've studied somewhere between 4 months and 3 years - I bet you're fluent now! :rolleyes:

Korrekt

FrancieBrady

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

SF's economic policy in the South is entirely a bluff - it's nonsensical and cannot be worked in any way shape or form.

You can say FG's health policy is a bluff because it patently and demonstratively hasn't worked.
Can you say that SF's hasn't worked? No, because it hasn't been implemented.

You can have an opinion though.

FreudianSlippers

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You can say FG's health policy is a bluff because it patently and demonstratively hasn't worked.
Can you say that SF's hasn't worked? No, because it hasn't been implemented.

You can have an opinion though.

SF's health policy is to spend an additional €3.3bn on healthcare; if FG spent an additional €3.3bn on healthcare, they wouldn't (in theory) have the issues you describe.

Only problem with SF's plan is where do they get an additional €3.3bn? They don't seem too sure themselves - other than "the rich"!

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Korrekt

Ich hätte "richtig" gesagt.

:shrug:

FrancieBrady

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

SF's health policy is to spend an additional €3.3bn on healthcare; if FG spent an additional €3.3bn on healthcare, they wouldn't (in theory) have the issues you describe.

Only problem with SF's plan is where do they get an additional €3.3bn? They don't seem too sure themselves - other than "the rich"!

'in theory' being the important word there.

There is only one of the two who have been actually caught 'bluffing'.
We would have to wait for SF to run their policies to say definitively that they are 'bluffing'.

FreudianSlippers

FrancieBrady wrote: »

'in theory' being the important word there.

There is only one of the two who have been actually caught 'bluffing'.

I say "in theory" because I don't think throwing more money at the situation will fix it. SF's policy is simply FG's plus more money... so I don't see how you can distinguish between the two.

We would have to wait for SF to run their policies to say definitively that they are 'bluffing'.

I'd rather not let them drive the economy into the toilet and spend billions without knowing where they're going to get it.

FrancieBrady

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I say "in theory" because I don't think throwing more money at the situation will fix it. SF's policy is simply FG's plus more money... so I don't see how you can distinguish between the two.


I'd rather not let them drive the economy into the toilet and spend billions without knowing where they're going to get it.

That, as they say, is your prerogative.
You go right ahead and find a party that wasn't party to driving our economy into the toilet.