So Michael D IS running again!

Anyone but Duffy.

Beechwoodspark

VinLieger wrote: »

Which again you have zero evidence to back up

If you believe its true show me some proof

Gave you anecdotal evidence from yesterday. See above in the thread.

I was actually surprised at how negative the reaction to him was.

realdanbreen

VinLieger wrote: »

About what? You literally just pointed out he hasn't been asked questions like that for 7 years. You really aren't making any sense.

Do you know what this thread is all about? Read the first post and if you are still unclear come back and I will try and explain it to you.

VinLieger

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Gave you anecdotal evidence from yesterday. See above in the thread.

I was actually surprised at how negative the reaction was.

Lol "anecdotal evidence"

Loafing Oaf

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

To give you a quick example I was in a big city centre pub yesterday watching the all Ireland and when he was shown on the screen I heard numerous ppl booing or insulting him

Were some of these guys holding two pints?:p

Beechwoodspark

VinLieger wrote: »

Lol "anecdotal evidence"

The 3k a night hotel story really seems to have angered ppl -the mood has soured on him

ligerdub

Hurrache wrote: »

Stuff like this




Then there's this

In what sense is that "anti-trans"? It's a criticism of extending the topic du jour in the media to children on the basis of being PR friendly to the masses and as a vote getter.

Children can't even vote or legally drink yet we're supposed to think it's reasonable for them to base a decision to change gender as something we should be supporting universally? You can be a broad supporter of trans rights (whatever that means) but still consider children to be beyond the pale, and to be honest I don't see what Gemma has said wrong there. I also say fair play to her for speaking up on the bandwagon of people getting on the LGBT, POC and the other hot topics these days. I suppose there's currency in finding fault in others so I can see why she'd be attacked by the usual sheep for her opinion there.

It's not like Fine Gael even care about this anyway. They are the puppet government of the EU anyway and just promote what they are told to promote by the powers in Brussels.

Hurrache

" 'Trans rights', whatever that means?”

You're the one using that phrase. You think people only become aware of their sexuality when they reach voting age?

"Bandwagon of....". "Sheep", "Puppet"

Brilliant, almost a full house, you were waiting on the "DOB" ball.

I know there's no point further engaging with you now, you've been like a dog with a bone on this all day waiting for someone to argue with. Get over it, it's a reality you can do nothing about.

VinLieger

realdanbreen wrote: »

Do you know what this thread is all about? Read the first post and if you are still unclear come back and I will try and explain it to you.

7 years on he changed his mind, i forgot that wasnt allowed, also the condescending tone is unnecessary

jmcc

VinLieger wrote: »

7 years on he changed his mind, i forgot that wasnt allowed, also the condescending tone is unnecessary

Higgins lied. It is that simple.

Regards...jmcc

realdanbreen

VinLieger wrote: »

7 years on he changed his mind, i forgot that wasnt allowed, also the condescending tone is unnecessary

He lied, which is why I asked if you can believe anything he says now.
If my post seemed condescending it was because you appeared unable to grasp what the thread is all about.

Water John

Amazingly, got a leaflet in the door on Thursday from Senator Maeve Higgins. Isn't that a coincidence.

pixelburp

So I presume those who believe 'Higgins Lied' would apply that same strict determination to all walks of life? That there's no such thing as a 'change of mind', merely a lie? I suppose the equivalence here might be a change of mind in career choice? Should the CAO rename its 'Change of Mind' process to 'Liers' Process?

jmcc

pixelburp wrote: »

So I presume those who believe 'Higgins Lied' would apply that same strict determination to all walks of life? That there's no such thing as a 'change of mind', merely a lie? I suppose the equivalence here might be a change of mind in career choice? Should the CAO rename its 'Change of Mind' process to 'Liers' Process?

When someone lies to the electorate to get elected, then it is a major issue. But then he's Labour and, to paraphrase Pat Rabbitte, isn't that the kind of thing that one does in an election?

Regards...jmcc

Hurrache

I went to a restaurant once and asked for beer with dinner. Remembered I was going to get steak and called the waitress back to ask for wine instead.

She called me a liar and was banned from ever coming back.

ligerdub

Hurrache wrote:

" 'Trans rights', whatever that means?â€

You're the one using that phrase. You think people only become aware of their sexuality when they reach voting age?[/quote]

Of course not. However, much like everything else with children, it's best to wait until they mature in all ways before using their opinions as reliable in matters such as this and entering into a potentially damaging (physically and emotionally), needless, and probably expensive road for them and all concerned. Manys a child goes through phases and behavioural shifts for all sorts of reasons. One thing to be comfortable in letting little Johnny be happy and being cool with him wearing a tutu wherever he wants, quite another to have a laissez faire attitude should little Johnny make the decision he wants to be little Joan! What's the big hurry anyway?

Like I say, a person under the age of 18, and many cases 16, can't enter into a legal contract or do all sorts of things legally, that is pretty much par for the course the world over. So, to reiterate, we're expecting to hold that as legitimate yet we're to allow them to change gender no problem. Ludicrous!

Gemma didn't say that a person couldn't be transgender, she opposed the introduction of the issue to minors. That's not being anti-trans, and I think anybody with at least a degree of common sense or decency would know that.

Hurrache wrote:

"Bandwagon of....". "Sheep",

Brilliant, almost a full house.[/quote]

If the boot fits....

Hurrache wrote:

I know there's no point further engaging with you now, you've been like a dog with a bone on this all day waiting for someone to argue with. Get over it, it's a reality you can do nothing about.

Well that's rubbish for starters. You won't engage with me after a whopping one post that disagrees with your point of view of calling somebody "anti-trans" when that criticism was clearly made within a very narrow focus of that broad issue? Sounds to me like you know you've no leg to stand on and are prepared to go personal with a completely biased and falsified view about why somebody has engaged with you. Perhaps I read your post and felt that it was total hogwash and needed to be commented on.

Trasna1

VinLieger wrote: »

7 years on he changed his mind, i forgot that wasnt allowed, also the condescending tone is unnecessary

There was no need to give the commitment he gave, and he should not have if there was even the slightest question he might desire to stay on.

The obvious answer was " if I'm fit to continue I will seek reelection, and it would be my desire that it would be contested". Instead he gave a clear commitment that he would stand aside after his 7.

Michael D's tenure has not been without incident, losing key staff over the allegedly prominent role given to his driver then turned advisor and holiday companion. And that's before we get to the lavish hotel bill from Switzerland.

It will be interesting what will be aired about the goings on in the Aras come campaign time.

pixelburp

jmcc wrote: »

When someone lies to the electorate to get elected, then it is a major issue. But then he's Labour and, to paraphrase Pat Rabbitte, isn't that the kind of thing that one does in an election?

Regards...jmcc

And I'm literally saying, is that a lie? Cos if THAT'S a lie, then so to is every change of mind with consequence. But of course let's be honest here, it's a politician so what it gets down to is the kneejerk emotive reaction that any decision is presumed shenanigans.

I also haven't seen a single statistic demonstrating that Higgins got elected 'cos he said he'd run for one term. Just conjecture and generic politician bashing.

What does that even mean anyway? That swathes of the electorate held their noses to vote for Higgins cos they figured they could put up with him for 7 years? If nothing else it feels weirdly insulting to the electorate that their voting was that narrow-mindedly shallow.

Hurrache

The whole one term thing is not the issue some want to make it out to be anyway.

If people really feel it's an issue and boo him from a pub they won't vote for him and his opponents can make hay.

But there's not a single credible opponent yet.

Water John

Freeman has reasonable credientals. Not sure why she chooses to look for the job. Roche, in similar position got a fair roasting the last time.

Trasna1

Hurrache wrote: »

The whole one term thing is not the issue some want to make it out to be anyway.

If people really feel it's an issue and boo him from a pub they won't vote for him and his opponents can make hay.

But there's not a single credible opponent yet.

If O'Cuiv is let run, he could run a credible campaign to threaten him. Theres a motivated conservative rump which makes up about a third of the electorate, and it's always easier to attack someone when they have a record.

And although I think it unlikely, If it's apathy that wins the day it could see Higgins out.

Trasna1

pixelburp wrote: »

And I'm literally saying, is that a lie? Cos if THAT'S a lie, then so to is every change of mind with consequence. But of course let's be honest here, it's a politician so what it gets down to is the kneejerk emotive reaction that any decision is presumed shenanigans.

I also haven't seen a single statistic demonstrating that Higgins got elected 'cos he said he'd run for one term. Just conjecture and generic politician bashing.

What does that even mean anyway? That swathes of the electorate held their noses to vote for Higgins cos they figured they could put up with him for 7 years? If nothing else it feels weirdly insulting to the electorate that their voting was that narrow-mindedly shallow.

Higgins got elected because Pat Kenny's Frontline programme torpedoed Gallagher's campaign with the fake tweet. Fake news before "fake news" if you will.

Hurrache

Maybe apathy, but driven by the potential opponents. There's nobody there yet to make a competition out of it or grab people's interest, each one has a history that put large swathes of voters off them one way or another.

Beechwoodspark

Trasna1 wrote: »

There was no need to give the commitment he gave, and he should not have if there was even the slightest question he might desire to stay on.

The obvious answer was " if I'm fit to continue I will seek reelection, and it would be my desire that it would be contested". Instead he gave a clear commitment that he would stand aside after his 7.

Michael D's tenure has not been without incident, losing key staff over the allegedly prominent role given to his driver then turned advisor and holiday companion. And that's before we get to the lavish hotel bill from Switzerland.

It will be interesting what will be aired about the goings on in the Aras come campaign time.

Also he has made numerous clearly partisan hard left speeches -although I get the sense that since labour lost power he was reined in a bit, he behaved in exchange for support from FG this time out. and of course the very inappropriate fulsome tribute he paid to Castro.

Water John

Still shocking poor judgement by PK. journalist using uncollaborated tweet.

Annasopra

Water John wrote: »

Amazingly, got a leaflet in the door on Thursday from Senator Maeve Higgins. Isn't that a coincidence.

Who?

jmcc

pixelburp wrote: »

And I'm literally saying, is that a lie?

He pledged to do only one term.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IL_TO8nqyeI

Regards...jmcc

pixelburp

Trasna1 wrote: »

Higgins got elected because Pat Kenny's Frontline programme torpedoed Gallagher's campaign with the fake tweet. Fake news before "fake news" if you will.

Oh yeah, I remember the polls after the debate (though Gallagher contributed with some spectacular self-sabotage by way of the 'brown envelope' remark), but that's still nowhere near the repeated assertions that somehow the electorate only voted for Higgins because he promised to run a single term. There's no proof, no stats, nothing.

And I wouldn't even care, but it was only asked of Higgins 'cos he was then 70 years old and his age was held against him as a negative (presumably for the sake of balance in the debate, having attacked every other candidate). This 'lie' we're supposed to insinuate dark machinations is over an ageing man hedging his short-to-medium-term bets.

TBH, 77 is probably too old to keep going with another 7 year term - but it's laughable to condemn this as a lie. Otherwise, as already mentioned, EVERY change of mind with consequence becomes a lie. If we're being truthful and not disingenuous and not just resorting to politician bashing.

jmcc wrote: »

He pledged to do only one term.
Regards...jmcc

And you're being utterly disingenuous to hold that as a lie.

Trasna1

Water John wrote: »

Still shocking poor judgement by PK. journalist using uncollaborated tweet.

I somehow suspect that if a similarly damaging tweet had been made about Higgins during the programme, the Frontline may have been more diligent in corroborating it.

Water John

Alice Mary. Good grief, there was me thinking Dear Maeve was writing to me, all the way from New York. Sorry about that.