Is President Higgins Creating A Dangerous Precedent?

SEPT 23 1989

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

Never had a real job in his life

Twee was a sociology & politics lecturer in NUIG for many years.

Topgear on Dave

Deleted User wrote: »

Twee was a sociology & politics lecturer in NUIG for many years.

Exactly.

Faugheen

Wouldn’t be any different to the average Irish person who chats about things they know f*ck all about so.

biko

Ten Pin wrote: »

From now on he'll be known as Precedent Higgins

And Dangerous shall be his middle name

SafeSurfer

Deleted User wrote: »

colt45 wrote: »

The two highest offices in the land held by homosexuals, is that what we are now calling a dangerous precedent?

I would advise you to take that colt and point it at your temple, do us all a favour.

Pretty despicable post in fairness. Disagree with someone fine. Making light of suicide which is currently rising alarmingly in Ireland is crass.

Faugheen

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Deleted User wrote: »

colt45 wrote: »

The two highest offices in the land held by homosexuals, is that what we are now calling a dangerous precedent?

I would advise you to take that colt and point it at your temple, do us all a favour.

Pretty despicable post in fairness. Disagree with someone fine. Making light of suicide which is currently rising alarmingly in Ireland is crass.

And making reference to homosexuality ‘setting a dangerous precedent’ is absolutely fine is it?

Both posts are horrible. Call it out for what it is instead of taking sides.

Gregor Samsa

JohnMc1 wrote: »

Liberals love being the Hammer. They don't love it when its their time to be the nail.

This applies equally to every political persuasion. In fact, it’s pretty much the basis of politics: be the hammer, not the nail.

_Kaiser_

suicide_circus wrote: »

the man is a living saint

No, no he's not.

Champagne socialist living off the taxpayer for decades while pontificating and now living out the ultimate retirement plan.

As with most elections in this country, got there by virtue of being the least offensive of the bunch, but that's not the same as an actual endorsement.

reg114

First of all I dont believe Ireland needs a president. The amount of money required to maintain this meaningless post is appalling. Mickey D will have cost the tax payer millions by the time he leaves office after 14 years of ribbon cutting. His wage alone will have cost us 3.5 million in that time, throw in the cost of running the Aras and all the expenses let alone staffing costs you are looking at in excess of 10 million. Its utterly disgraceful given the pointlessness of the office. Think for example about the All ireland finals last weekend, would they be any less of a spectacle if the president wasnt present ? No, they would continue on in the absence of a seal of approval from 'official Ireland'. Id abolish the position immediately and use the Aras for something far more constructive that like a bloody nursing home or something , anything would be better than a salubrious official residence of a pointless president.

If people insist we should have a president let that person live in their own residence and entertain guests in Gov buildings or Farmleigh.

As for Mickey D's politicising the office, its not a surprise. I think if he wanted to comment of current affairs he should have stayed in the Dail, but then again, he is the same man who promised he was only running for one term and found the role so elevating he reneged and broke that promise.. Once a politician always a politician..

tjhook

reg114 wrote: »

First of all I dont believe Ireland needs a president.

I disagree. Who would be Commander in Chief of the armed forces if not the President? It's important that the government of the day doesn't have too much power.

Another example, Paddy Hillery did us some service when he prevented a certain Taoiseach-in-waiting from subverting democracy. In my opinion, that incident alone justifies the role of President.

There are a lot of things we could do better in this country, but I'd be very careful before fiddling with the separation of powers.

James Brown

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

No, no he's not.

Champagne socialist living off the taxpayer for decades while pontificating and now living out the ultimate retirement plan.

As with most elections in this country, got there by virtue of being the least offensive of the bunch, but that's not the same as an actual endorsement.

He's articulate and intelligent. The best President we've had.

tjhook

Matt Barrett wrote: »

He's articulate and intelligent. The best President we've had.

He's very left wing. Would you feel the same way if we instead had his mirror image with right-wing opinions and tendencies?

I'd rather a president who wasn't so polarising. I don't care if they're left-wing or right-wing, so long as they're competently executing the constitutional role, and keeping their political opinions to themselves.

I may be in a minority though.

James Brown

tjhook wrote: »

He's very left wing. Would you feel the same way if we instead had his mirror image with right-wing opinions and tendencies?

I'd rather a president who wasn't so polarising. I don't care if they're left-wing or right-wing, so long as they're competently executing the constitutional role, and keeping their political opinions to themselves.

I may be in a minority though.

No. Such a person wouldn't be 'the best President' we've ever had.

You're asking if I'd like someone different, the opposite just as much. No.

tjhook

Matt Barrett wrote: »

No. Such a person wouldn't be 'the best President' we've ever had.
You're asking if I'd like someone different, the opposite just as much. No.

If I understand you, you appear to be saying that being on the left is a part of what makes him the best president ever. Surely that measurement of "best" is very subjective. He's the President whose opinions and values most closely match your own. That doesn't make him objectively the best for anybody else.

Edit: It's very little different to somebody saying trump or Putin is the best president ever. Completely subjective based on their own political leanings.

osarusan

tjhook wrote: »

He's very left wing. Would you feel the same way if we instead had his mirror image with right-wing opinions and tendencies?

I'd rather a president who wasn't so polarising. I don't care if they're left-wing or right-wing, so long as they're competently executing the constitutional role, and keeping their political opinions to themselves.

I may be in a minority though.

I don't think he's polarising at all outside the mire of internet message boards.

James Brown

tjhook wrote: »

If I understand you, you appear to be saying that being on the left is a part of what makes him the best president ever. Surely that measurement of "best" is very subjective. He's the President whose opinions and values most closely match your own. That doesn't make him objectively the best for anybody else.

Edit: It's very little different to somebody saying trump or Putin is the best president ever. Completely subjective based on their own political leanings.

Not fully. I like him as he seems to be. I've been in his company. I've heard he speak and like much of what he says. I think he's a great President.
Of course it's subjective, it's an opinion.
No it doesn't, you're right. I didn't say it was a verifiable fact. It's obviously an opinion.

Yes. People like who they like based on what they like. Who'd have thought?

Faugheen

osarusan wrote: »

I don't think he's polarising at all outside the mire of internet message boards.

This.

Especially when the darling of internet message boards was Peter Casey and Michael D walloped him.

Patrick2010

Higgins comes across as very short tempered if someone says something he doesn’t like