So Michael D IS running again!

spurshero

Adamcp898 wrote: »

Ally Dick wrote: »

The Ireland match tomorrow night will be similar

Except Michael D will be in attendance

Plenty of time for soccer and gaa matches . No time for a debate though on why he should be president again .

FrancieBrady

alaimacerc wrote: »

That... was not Bunty's finest hour. She should have gone out on her earlier high.

Banksy has a lot to answer for. All show and very little else to offer generation.

alaimacerc

The Freeman v Riada sniping on her "past relationship" not making either look very classeh.

alaimacerc

Adamcp898 wrote: »

I propose the addition of a trap door for the next one. Just to provide some respite when the comic value of an answer fades into toe curling cringe.

Only if there's a tank of sharks below.

</Bond Villain>

alaimacerc

OK, that wasn't as bad as I'd expected. But only because I'd expected pretty bad. Especially after Cormac O'Hara's nonsensefest. And then expected worse, from the comments here. I think maybe there just being the four of them itself helped a little. But... it was still pretty bad.

If only it worked like Eurovision, and this was the semi-final. We'd only had to have one or two of these spoofers in the next one...

alaimacerc

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Really don't care for her charity work.

Agree with the rest of your post, but was struck by this. Is her charitable work flawed in some particular way? Or are you having a The Unknown Ideal moment about charity of any sort being a type of character defect?

Hurrache

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If you genuinely believe he would advocate for hunting as President then by all means don't vote for him..

I never said that either.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

But saying they are 'unfit to represent the Irish people' because they have a private view on something is ridiculous.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Yes, of course they will.
But you will not find a candidate whose entire private views will fit with everyone else's. So you have to decide if they will keep them private or not. If they do, so what then? Are you saying that candidates have to hold the same views as you?

Are you for real now? That's exactly how people, including you, look at candidates as part of the overall evaluation process when deciding who to vote for. Are you saying you ignore their public utterances?

His view is not private, why do you keep trying to claim it so? He was a public representative and advocate for a hunt group.

You're being completely disingenuous and hypocritical, and I suspect being argumentative for the sake of it.

FrancieBrady

Hurrache wrote: »

I never said that either.



Are you for real now? That's exactly how people, including you, vote for. His view is not private, he was a public representative and advocate for s hunt group.

You're being completely disingenuous and hypocritical, and I suspect being argumentative for the sake of it.

So how are you gonna find somebody 'fit to represent all the people of Ireland'?

People in public office are entitled to private views. I don't agree with Michael D's private views, I think he was a fine president though and will get my vote. I don't care what he believes privately, it is none of my business, same with Leo and same with anyone doing a 'public' job.

Hurrache

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So how are you gonna find somebody 'fit to represent all the people of Ireland'?

Why are you so hung up on this statement that nobody but yourself made?

And yet again you're claiming private views, it's not a private view, it's a very public one as part of his role as advocate for a hunt. What is it about a public role that you're struggling with?

alaimacerc

FrancieBrady wrote: »

People in public office are entitled to private views.

If he's been prominently on public demos, those aren't strictly "private views".

Obviously one has to make a judgement about a given issue's overall importance.

Hunting isn't the most important thing for me, certainly, but it's a mark against him. I think as you say he was the best performer on the night, but this would drag him back closer to the trailing pack (as it were), leaving Riada clearer in second place for me.

Opinion polls won't budge, of course.

FrancieBrady

Hurrache wrote: »

Why are you so hung up on this statement that nobody but yourself made?

And yet again you're claiming private views, it's not private view, it's a very public one as part of his role as advocate for a hunt. What is it a public role you're struggling with?

I'm paraphrasing what you said here.

Hurrache wrote:

he should in no way get within an arses roar of representing the Irish people.

Hurrache

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I'm paraphrasing what you said here.

Well that's a good reason why you shouldn't paraphrase people then, especially if it gives a completely different meaning to what was actually said and meant.

FrancieBrady

Hurrache wrote: »

Well that's a good reason why you shouldn't paraphrase people then, especially if it gives a completely different meaning to what was actually said and meant.

'He shouldn't get within an asses roar of representing the Irish people' is massively different to 'not fit to represent the Irish people'??? Hmmmm

Loafing Oaf

Eric Cartman wrote: »

think of the new iteration of the guy who crashed into rte and went mental at pat Kenny.

Only in her case, a lot of people might feel she was justified if she labelled her targets 'insufferable ****holes.':pac:

Hurrache

FrancieBrady wrote: »

'He shouldn't get within an asses roar of representing the Irish people' is massively different to 'not fit to represent the Irish people'??? Hmmmm

You can't even paraphrase yourself correctly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So how are you gonna find somebody 'fit to represent all the people of Ireland'?

FrancieBrady

Hurrache wrote: »

You can't even paraphrase yourself correctly

Pedantry rarely fools anyone Hurrache.

alaimacerc

Eric Cartman wrote: »

she's some mental woman who showed up as a fake candidate seeking a Dublin nomination acting as some made up character out for herself or something, its a protest statement against the dragons I think.

It was a pretty good protest at the DubCitCo meeting in the first place. Just didn't come off at all this time, though. RTE not having none of it. No mic on her, no visual, went to break, bum's rush.

It's a little ironic, as this was the very programme that had her on last time, very much in the spirit of "yo-ho-ho, tremendous craic winding up the likes of Mannix Flynn". (Which to be fair, it is.)

Hurrache

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Pedantry rarely fools anyone Hurrache.

You're the one hung up on it and adding words into statements that were never there to change the meaning.

You're basically arguing against anyone who says they won't vote for someone based on a public stance.

Rhineshark

Given he was a public advocate in a public role, it's a tad disingenuous to find it at all odd that it might colour views of him or to think it should be off-limits ("private") or somehow irrelevant.

I don't quite know how you choose who you want to vote for but I would pay attention to what they say and do. Many people don't like hunting to the point that it could play a role in how to rank this lot.

gozunda

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Casey = 1

Freeman = 3

Ni Riada = 6

Duffy = 8

Scored out of ten.

Christ I thought your one NI Riada was cat. Just to move away from the populist mudslinging - I Wouldn't be a fan of that particular parties historical contributions tbh. Agree with the others. Gallaghers lack of contribution backfired imo.

eastwest

gozunda wrote: »

Christ I thought your one NI Riada was cat. Just to move away from the populist mudslinging - I Wouldn't be a fan of that particular parties historical contributions tbh. Agree with the others. Gallaghers lack of contribution backfired imo.

NI Riada's snide remark about freeman's relationship with the pyramid seller guy were nasty. She's not a nice person.

Danzy

Think bagman blew it by not turning up. Made himself yesterday's news.


Who ever advised him of that is an eejit.

Danzy

eastwest wrote: »

NI Riada's snide remark about freeman's relationship with the pyramid seller guy were nasty. She's not a nice person.

They aren't friends they have a job to do and pointing out stuff like that is part of that.

Rhineshark

Not sure whether to be impressed by Ni Riada's answer or not. I mean, it's mostly surprising because she's SF but it is a very reasonable answer. Seems to be dominating the post-debate chatter as well.

That the president shouldn't wear symbols is also a reasonable position to have. (Duffy)

The RTE summation of the debate certainly went easy on Casey, judging by this thread some of the nonsense he was saying.

Beechwoodspark

My scores

Casey-1
Ni Riada-3
Freeman-3
Duffy-2

Out of 10

AGC

Rhineshark wrote: »

That the president shouldn't wear symbols is also a reasonable position to have. (Duffy)

.

That is the case currently I thought?

The President does not wear any symbols or be seen to promote certain causes over another?

Rhineshark

AGC wrote: »

That is the case currently I thought?

The President does not wear any symbols or be seen to promote certain causes over another?

Hard to say from a brief hunt for an answer. It doesn't seem to be proscribed but it may well be a sort of tradition not to.

marieholmfan

gmisk wrote: »

Who built his fortune on an extremely dodgy pyramid scheme

Every American fortune is built on slavery and genocide if we go back far enough.

Rhineshark

marieholmfan wrote: »

Every American fortune is built on slavery and genocide if we go back far enough.

Er, no it isn't unless you're saying that as they live in America and profit on American infrastructure etc built by slaves in some cases or on stolen land, but that's kinda pushing it.

Pussyhands

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Duffy is worse than either of them!

I dislike Duffy a lot but he's actually not doing so bad where I hear him. He seems like the only one actually prepared. Even more than LNR