So Michael D IS running again!

alaimacerc

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Funny you should reference the 8th. Really those that voted against the last referendum (some 33%) have no political home at the moment really.

Well, other that they pretty clearly in very large part feel at home in FF, in FG to
a lesser extent, and diminishing returns until we get down to the some of the right-wing no-hopers I listed. There's plenty of parties to be voted for, to paraphrase someone.

It's true that there'd be a quota or two in every constituency in the land if there were a single, coherent conservative bloc. And that's the narrative the Mullens, etc, have been trying to put on their lads having taken one hellllll of a beating.

In practice, that will break down into all sorts of different groups. People that were just successfully trolled by the suspiciously well-funded, hectoring, and deeply misleading No campaign. People that were voting on some specific reservation on the followup legislation. People that are genuinely fairly hardline n abortion, but who don't see themselves as broad-spectrum right-wing. People for whom it's just one issue of many, what about their spending boondoggle, tax cut, etc.

alaimacerc

Adamcp898 wrote: »

Unless the horse-sized ducks are outraged and have reported me for drawing attention to their defeat

Those horse-sized ducks are a menace, I tell ya, and are scaremongering about hundreds of duck-sized horses to create a smokescreen to hide behind!

Puzzling, seemed a perfectly harmless post. As far as I know the tweet is public, hasn't been deleted, no idea why it'd get "legalled", etc.

Indeed, it's being reported in the newspapers (well, a newspaper of sorts):

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/presidential-election-2018/sean-gallagher-says-show-must-go-on-after-being-hospitalised-for-knee-injury-37428186.html

MrMusician18

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

They haven't had a political home for more than 20 years but evidently haven't been bothered enough to do anything about it. See no reason to think such a party should establish itself this late in the day.

That's simply not true. They're was simply no appetite to even contemplate repeal until the Savita case.

A new party could easily coalesce around a conditional pro Europe view and a viewpoint that while not anti migrant or Traveller, doesn't indulge these groups either.

I'd see a market for that, not one to win a majority, but one to be a genuine presence.

VinLieger

The Specialist wrote: »

Not quite - he's got my vote now after his comments and I would have initially voted Michael D. Refreshing to hear someone call out the PC bull**** in this country for what it is.

And what about all the other garbage hes spouted? That is immediately okay now he agrees with you on this one single issue?


I agree with him too on travelers but that in no way changes my mind that hes a fvcking moron who is entirely in this for himself and his own personal interests

The Specialist

hotmail.com wrote: »

Attacking Travellers, who account for less than 1% of the population, gets your vote.

Lovely.

Calling them out for what they are, and the ridiculous situation that they were given any sort of special status.

You can call that an attack if you want - I call that the stone cold truth and the truth hurts sometimes.

VinLieger wrote: »

And what about all the other garbage hes spouted? That is immediately okay now he agrees with you on this one single issue?


I agree with him too on travelers but that in no way changes my mind that hes a fvcking moron who is entirely in this for himself and his own personal interests

I admire the balls he had to make such a statement, and as I said it's very refreshing to hear someone not tip toe around this group and their behavior, especially on such a high profile platform.

VinLieger

The Specialist wrote: »

I admire the balls he had to make such a statement, and as I said it's very refreshing to hear someone not tip toe around this group and their behavior, especially on such a high profile platform.

You didnt answer my question. Does him agreeing with you on this one single issue negate all the other garbage he's spouted? Are you aware of anything else he has said beyond this one statement?

Adamcp898

alaimacerc wrote: »

Those horse-sized ducks are a menace, I tell ya, and are scaremongering about hundreds of duck-sized horses to create a smokescreen to hide behind!

Puzzling, seemed a perfectly harmless post. As far as I know the tweet is public, hasn't been deleted, no idea why it'd get "legalled", etc.

Indeed, it's being reported in the newspapers (well, a newspaper of sorts):

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/presidential-election-2018/sean-gallagher-says-show-must-go-on-after-being-hospitalised-for-knee-injury-37428186.html

I was thinking perhaps some Virgin staffer was poaching the "Grade A" material for Pat........

Anyways, for those who weren't aware, I thought it was fairly obvious it was posted in reference to this interview the main man gave two days ago.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1mO-Hw1ujRM

I mean he even mentions going for the knees!

Topgear on Dave

VinLieger wrote: »

.........hes a fvcking moron who is entirely in this for himself and his own personal interests

No different to any other candidate in this stupid election.

Hotblack Desiato

The Specialist wrote: »

I admire the balls he had to make such a statement

Balls? It's not as if at ~1% in the polls he had anything to lose. And judging by this thread and the AH thread, some people's votes are very cheaply bought.

alaimacerc wrote: »

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/presidential-election-2018/sean-gallagher-says-show-must-go-on-after-being-hospitalised-for-knee-injury-37428186.html

Ironic given that MDH had the dodgy knee the last time!

FrancieBrady

The Specialist wrote: »

Calling them out for what they are, and the ridiculous situation that they were given any sort of special status.

You can call that an attack if you want - I call that the stone cold truth and the truth hurts sometimes.



I admire the balls he had to make such a statement, and as I said it's very refreshing to hear someone not tip toe around this group and their behavior, especially on such a high profile platform.

So you initially were voting for probably the most prominent human rights protagonist in the country, a man who would never speak ill of a minority much less use the presidency to do and as soon as you heard someone have a cheap; grasping pop at a minority, you switched to him?

That what you are asking us to believe?

Rhineshark

The Specialist wrote: »

Calling them out for what they are, and the ridiculous situation that they were given any sort of special status.

You can call that an attack if you want - I call that the stone cold truth and the truth hurts sometimes.

I admire the balls he had to make such a statement, and as I said it's very refreshing to hear someone not tip toe around this group and their behavior, especially on such a high profile platform.

It really doesn't take balls to attack minority communities and get the "right on" crowd onside. It's pretty bog standard "vote for me, I dislike this group too and they're such a small group that I dont need to care about their votes", as practiced by Trump and the Tories. It's hardly a brave new approach to be an ignorant bollicks on tv in 2018.

Sycamore Tree

I think a non-religious right wing party could do well.

Being religious would only make them look cuckoo and consign them to the marginal voters like SF.

MrMusician18

Rhineshark wrote: »

It really doesn't take balls to attack minority communities and get the "right on" crowd onside. It's pretty bog standard "vote for me, I dislike this group too and they're such a small group that I dont need to care about their votes", as practiced by Trump and the Tories. It's hardly a brave new approach to be an ignorant bollicks on tv in 2018.

It's relatively brave in Ireland tbf, since it goes against almost the entire Irish media who have suppressed reporting these opinions

The right on crowd are surely in miggledys camp?

MrMusician18

Sycamore Tree wrote: »

I think a non-religious right wing party could do well.

Being religious would only make them look cuckoo and consign them to the marginal voters like SF.

SF is fairly mainstream now, I'd have thought?

If agree though that a secular right wing party could do well here, and I think the State fears it. I remember when the country too in Syrian refugees and houses them in Ballaghadreen - totally suppressed by the state until a day or two before arrival so feared opposition couldn't mobilise.

alaimacerc

MrMusician18 wrote: »

It's relatively brave in Ireland tbf, since it goes against almost the entire Irish media who have suppressed reporting these opinions

The right on crowd are surely in miggledys camp?

I only wish the were 66% of Ireland that were the "right-on crowd", and only 2% that were right off.

(Most of them active on AH right now, it seems.)

alaimacerc

MrMusician18 wrote: »

If agree though that a secular right wing party could do well here, and I think the State fears it.

In whom is "the State" personified for these purposes? Are you anthropomorphising the entire body corporate? Maybe it's not just the State, it's the Deep State.

Or in less sinister-looking language, are you basically just saying that slightly-less-right-wing politicians disagree with far-right ones?

Sycamore Tree

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Sycamore Tree wrote: »

I think a non-religious right wing party could do well.

Being religious would only make them look cuckoo and consign them to the marginal voters like SF.

SF is fairly mainstream now, I'd have thought?

If agree though that a secular right wing party could do well here, and I think the State fears it. I remember when the country too in Syrian refugees and houses them in Ballaghadreen - totally suppressed by the state until a day or two before arrival so feared opposition couldn't mobilise.

SF are mainstream alright but seem to have reached their 'marmite' cap. Losing Gerry as leader might give them some more traction but not much.
I think a secular right wing party could come in and pick up 15-25 seats while every other party demonised them...

Sycamore Tree

Duplicate

alaimacerc

The Specialist wrote: »

Calling them out for what they are, and the ridiculous situation that they were given any sort of special status.

"Let's calumniate and denigrate an entire social group. Then, ridicule the idea that there's any need for any protection against them being calumniated and denigrated."

Maybe a tactical mistake to use yourself as your own expert witness.

alaimacerc

Sycamore Tree wrote: »

I think a secular right wing party could come in and pick up 15-25 seats while every other party demonised them...

I'm now curious as to how right-wing you have it mind, when you're anticipating everyone else remarking on their close resemblance to demons.

When you say "secular", do you mean not focused on the right-wing take on "social" issues, as most of them have? (NP, CSP.)

Or just doing the exact same thing, but adding "simon says we're secular"? (Renua, Libertas.)

James Brown

rovertom wrote: »

He got the job on the promise of him not becoming the resident bedridden president - making it clear he would exit after one term. He was being so sly and yet nobody seems to care.

I have not put any detailed thought into who candidates could be should Michael D not be there however If there is anyone on this thread suggesting that there are not better people in the country than what we've got here, that is laughable.
There a brilliant people all over the country but they will need a party behind them. As the main parties backed Michael D, we lost the possibility of well backed candidates joining the race.
I don't believe it has to be a super well known politician, just backed by major party that isn't SF.

Says you.
He changed his mind. You do know he needs to be voted back in?
I would suggest we have a well backed candidate, Michael D.?
So you'll be voting for Michael D.?

The Specialist

alaimacerc wrote: »

"Let's calumniate and denigrate an entire social group. Then, ridicule the idea that there's any need for any protection against them being calumniated and denigrated."

Maybe a tactical mistake to use yourself as your own expert witness.

The only people who need "protection" of any sort are the normal citizens of this country who have been robbed, assaulted and terrorised by this "minority" for decades. The left can try and paint the "poor little travellers" as some sort of victims after this, I'm sure even our uber-PC media will go out of their way to defend them. Peter Casey is just saying what 99.9% of this country think of this group.

MrMusician18

alaimacerc wrote: »

In whom is "the State" personified for these purposes? Are you anthropomorphising the entire body corporate? Maybe it's not just the State, it's the Deep State.

Or in less sinister-looking language, are you basically just saying that slightly-less-right-wing politicians disagree with far-right ones?

The state is obviously the officials in the department of housing and local government who didn't tell anyone what they were planning for fear of local opposition.

Nothing deep or sinister about my language.

James Brown

Try_harder wrote: »

Casey shoring up the boards.ie votes I see

All he has to do now is say the sick, elderly are the problem and start a thread on dole spongers.

MrMusician18

alaimacerc wrote: »

I'm now curious as to how right-wing you have it mind, when you're anticipating everyone else remarking on their close resemblance to demons.

When you say "secular", do you mean not focused on the right-wing take on "social" issues, as most of them have? (NP, CSP.)

Or just doing the exact same thing, but adding "simon says we're secular"? (Renua, Libertas.)

Id say they would focus on issues such as housing and welfare rather that the traditional social issues, where they might take a line that they don't really like them but the issues are settled.

Rather than housing and stables for travellers, they'd refocus on supporting working couples with a gross combined income of between 50-100k to get their own home.

MrMusician18

rovertom wrote: »

He got the job on the promise of him not becoming the resident bedridden president - making it clear he would exit after one term. He was being so sly and yet nobody seems to care.

I have not put any detailed thought into who candidates could be should Michael D not be there however If there is anyone on this thread suggesting that there are not better people in the country than what we've got here, that is laughable.
There a brilliant people all over the country but they will need a party behind them. As the main parties backed Michael D, we lost the possibility of well backed candidates joining the race.
I don't believe it has to be a super well known politician, just backed by major party that isn't SF.

I don't think that's fair, since we are having an election and no one has to vote for him. If he was reappointed without a vote your comment would be fair.

That said, we are lacking credible candidates in this clown car election

For Forks Sake

https://twitter.com/CaseyPeterJ/status/1052508807753097217

Casey deciding to borrow some American style negative campaign ads. Although why it sounds like it's being narrated by Garfield is beyond me...

MrMusician18

For Forks Sake wrote: »

https://twitter.com/CaseyPeterJ/status/1052508807753097217

Casey deciding to borrow some American style negative campaign ads. Although why it sounds like it's being narrated by Garfield is beyond me...

The facts behind that statistic would be interesting. Does he do longer engagements now, instead of more? Fewer invitations, perhaps since most groups would have wanted/requested a visit early in his presidency.

Plenty of credible responses as to why MDH had fewer on number appearances in the latter years.

James Brown

The Specialist wrote: »

The only people who need "protection" of any sort are the normal citizens of this country who have been robbed, assaulted and terrorised by this "minority" for decades. The left can try and paint the "poor little travellers" as some sort of victims after this, I'm sure even our uber-PC media will go out of their way to defend them. Peter Casey is just saying what 99.9% of this country think of this group.

Hold yer whist. The left is it now? More policies brought in by FG/FF government put on 'the left' so we can keep voting FG/FF with a clear conscience? Who lives among travellers the most? The average low income worker or Leo Varadkar? Does Charlie Flanagan have travelers trying to sell him carpet at the door?
We really need to start looking at issues in more detail than left and right. I'm pretty left orientated but I think the ethnic status is a nonsense. What now? I become a slum landlord and run for FG?
We don't need a president trying to divide the country. Casey is a chancer looking for poll points. I'm pretty sure someone who has spent more time in the U.S. than Ireland over the years, with his money, has never crossed paths with a traveler, besides maybe Mick Wallace or the Healy-Raes

mrbrianj

MrMusician18 wrote: »

The facts behind that statistic would be interesting. Does he do longer engagements now, instead of more? Fewer invitations, perhaps since most groups would have wanted/requested a visit early in his presidency.

Plenty of credible responses as to why MDH had fewer on number appearances in the latter years.

They had the graphic % count down the wrong way around. Casey must be going for 7 years in Fossetts not the Aras.