So Michael D IS running again!

FrancieBrady

First head to head TV debate tonight. Can see this getting nasty. Something has to be thrown tonight or it's a done deal.
When is the next poll out?

richiepurgas

Eric Cartman wrote: »

7 more years of him shaking hands with socialist leaders as they let their own people starve to death , and with the same hands pointing and pontificating at people who do work in Ireland and telling them they're not doing enough.

During the last 7 years, can you name those socialist leaders he shook hands with while their people starved to death ?

James Brown

richiepurgas wrote: »

During the last 7 years, can you name those socialist leaders he shook hands with while their people starved to death ?

I couldn't resist

Eric Cartman

richiepurgas wrote: »

During the last 7 years, can you name those socialist leaders he shook hands with while their people starved to death ?

You mean aside from his praise for Castro and Chavez
Meeting with PT's leader in Brazil
Argentina is still recovering from socialist policies in the past.

FrancieBrady

Eric Cartman wrote: »

You mean aside from his praise for Castro and Chavez
Meeting with PT's leader in Brazil
Argentina is still recovering from socialist policies in the past.

I wonder if when welcoming the American pres or the British or Italian leaders if he mentioned the abject poverty in their countries as a result of government policy what would happen?
He addressed the fact that what Castro attempted to do resulted in great social cost.
No system of government is perfect, that I can see anyhow. But you can be sure our pres would not be allowed to mention that when certain leaders are here.

Loafing Oaf

Eric Cartman wrote: »

You mean aside from his praise for Castro and Chavez

Presumably he does mean that, as most people see a distinction between shaking hands with a living person and praising a dead one...

Eric Cartman

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I wonder if when welcoming the American pres or the British or Italian leaders if he mentioned the abject poverty in their countries as a result of government policy what would happen?
He addressed the fact that what Castro attempted to do resulted in great social cost.
No system of government is perfect, that I can see anyhow. But you can be sure our pres would not be allowed to mention that when certain leaders are here.

theres a massive difference between tory Britain or Donald trumps America having a few starving people and Venezuela having people literally so starving and having no shops with stocks of food to even steal from that they are eating rats and flamingo's

FrancieBrady

Eric Cartman wrote: »

theres a massive difference between tory Britain or Donald trumps America having a few starving people and Venezuela having people literally so starving and having no shops with stocks of food to even steal from that they are eating rats and flamingo's

Ever been to rural America? Some people are living in 3rd world conditions. Poverty is poverty and both systems result in it for some.

Eric Cartman

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Ever been to rural America? Some people are living in 3rd world conditions. Poverty is poverty and both systems result in it for some.

socialism / communism results in it for all.

Theres a massive difference , yet again, between an individual not having money to buy food because of a multitude of reasons from illness to laziness to poor life choices, and a systematic economic barrier to even producing food by a government that results in nobody making food, no shops having that food to sell. People are literally burning paper money for fuel because its so worthless.

FrancieBrady

Eric Cartman wrote: »

socialism / communism results in it for all.

Theres a massive difference ,

Not if you are living in poverty.

I would be critical of some aspects of all systems and praise others.

Danzy

Eric Cartman wrote: »

socialism / communism results in it for all.

Theres a massive difference , yet again, between an individual not having money to buy food because of a multitude of reasons from illness to laziness to poor life choices, and a systematic economic barrier to even producing food by a government that results in nobody making food, no shops having that food to sell. People are literally burning paper money for fuel because its so worthless.

Communism and free market libertarians both rely on denying human nature.

Eric Cartman

Danzy wrote: »

Communism and free market libertarians both rely on denying human nature.

yes, but if you put those on a sliding scale you have to get nearer to libertarianism than communism before food shows up and people en masse don't starve and suffer. if you go about 70% of the way you end up with our democratic welfare state which does feed everyone (pretty much)

Itssoeasy

So is Sean Gallagher going to show up or is he still going to use Michael D Higgins not being there as an excuse ?

FrancieBrady

Itssoeasy wrote: »

So is Sean Gallagher going to show up or is he still going to use Michael D Higgins not being there as an excuse ?

Not by the looks of it.

Beechwoodspark

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Not by the looks of it.

Gallagher is attempting to put himself on the same level as MDH with these antics. He’s miles behind in the polls.

He says his diary is free tonight so maybe he’ll do a last minute u turn. Doubt it though.

Itssoeasy

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Gallagher is attempting to put himself on the same level as MDH with these antics. He’s miles behind in the polls.

He says his diary is free tonight so maybe he’ll do a last minute u turn. Doubt it though.

Okay but with MDH not there tonight surely it would be a smart call on his part to do the debate and not have the incumbent there and use it to his advantage ? He nearly won it last time and the people of the country felt he was a viable candidate for president last time, so it would be him against with all due respect four poor candidates against him.

alaimacerc

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

BTW I've come up with a collective noun for the reality-TV candidates...

"The Dragoons"

Get off your horse, drink up your milk, and then mosey away from the presidential contest?

alaimacerc

Eric Cartman wrote: »

yes, but if you put those on a sliding scale you have to get nearer to libertarianism than communism before food shows up and people en masse don't starve and suffer. if you go about 70% of the way you end up with our democratic welfare state which does feed everyone (pretty much)

Gas. For how long haas this country been "70% libertarian", would you say? With optional reference to the outlawing of divorce, married women working, same-sex marriage, abortion, contraception, the whole "homage to Rome" business, etc. Or otherwise.

alaimacerc

Itssoeasy wrote: »

So is Sean Gallagher going to show up or is he still going to use Michael D Higgins not being there as an excuse ?

Please! That's so unfair. It's not an "excuse".

It's a stunt. Veryvery different.

Eric Cartman

alaimacerc wrote: »

Gas. For how long haas this country been "70% libertarian", would you say? With optional reference to the outlawing of divorce, married women working, same-sex marriage, abortion, contraception, the whole "homage to Rome" business, etc. Or otherwise.

I was discussing economics and you slid social policy in there. As time has gone on and things have gotten better we have more free enterprise than poorly run state monopolies and quangos. Trying to equate free market economic theory to abortion or divorce is just completely devoid of logic, except for in a free market with a tiny government there wouldn't be the power to have ever made those things illegal.

BENDYBINN

Itssoeasy wrote: »

So is Sean Gallagher going to show up or is he still going to use Michael D Higgins not being there as an excuse ?

Clever move by Gallagher.....seems he’s the only one that’s taken Higgins on!!
It’s a two horse race now.

FrancieBrady

BENDYBINN wrote: »

Clever move by Gallagher.....seems he’s the only one that’s taken Higgins on!!
It’s a two horse race now.

Spent his time on the radio debate trying to take the heat of Higgins. Campaign is all over the shop.

alaimacerc

BENDYBINN wrote: »

Clever move by Gallagher.....seems he’s the only one that’s taken Higgins on!!
It’s a two horse race now.

It's his telegraphed attempt at being "clever". Hard to see it as a two-horse race when it's the other four also-rans that are on the telly tonight. (Aside from Micky D on the 6-1, which I'm watching right now.)

Also hard to see it like that when you can get 9/1 odds for the field, never mind on hoss #2.

James Brown

BENDYBINN wrote: »

Clever move by Gallagher.....seems he’s the only one that’s taken Higgins on!!
It’s a two horse race now.

He's the only one taking himself seriously more like.
I thought Casey had more pops at Higgins?

alaimacerc

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Spent his time on the radio debate trying to take the heat of Higgins. Campaign is all over the shop.

And would choose to fight a horse-sized duck. Massive tactical blunder!

Beechwoodspark

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Okay but with MDH not there tonight surely it would be a smart call on his part to do the debate and not have the incumbent there and use it to his advantage ? He nearly won it last time and the people of the country felt he was a viable candidate for president last time, so it would be him against with all due respect four poor candidates against him.

Well if he did show up tonight at least it would show he has a bit of passion and fight in him for the presidency. So far it’s been a very lacklustre low energy campaign from him

BENDYBINN

Gallagher is right,let the no-hopers debate away among themselves.

alaimacerc

Eric Cartman wrote: »

I was discussing economics and you slid social policy in there. As time has gone on and things have gotten better we have more free enterprise than poorly run state monopolies and quangos. Trying to equate free market economic theory to abortion or divorce is just completely devoid of logic, except for in a free market with a tiny government there wouldn't be the power to have ever made those things illegal.

The logic is very simple. Let me see if I can keep the explanation sufficiently so.
Libertarianism per se expressly covers both of those things. So if you're going to ignore social issues, you're simply equating "libertarianism" and "business as usual crony capitalism". Which of course is how most self-described "libertarians" end up voting, after all their protestations being fundamentally different, but you're dropping the ball on any sort of deniability here.

alaimacerc

BENDYBINN wrote: »

Gallagher is right,let the no-hopers debate away among themselves.

Four out of the five no-hopers, you mean.

FrancieBrady

BENDYBINN wrote: »

Gallagher is right,let the no-hopers debate away among themselves.

This is the first main opportunity to engage with the public and he isn't there. Higgins doesn't need to, we all know what he has to offer.
Massive gamble by Gallagher and I think it will backfire. He will certainly come under fire tonight and come across as arrogant.