nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

So Michael D IS running again!

realdanbreen

So when Michael D was campaigning for president and said it would be a one off term he was lying?
Many voted for him because he was only going for one term and wasn't trying to hog the job for 14 years.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Etc

badtoro wrote: »

I hope a decent candidate will run against him.

Remember 2011 ?

Here's who he was up against...

Sean Gallagher
Martin McGuinness
Gay Mitchell
David Norris
Dana Rosemary Scanlon
Mary Davis.

The only name I've heard bandied so far has been Miriam O'Callaghan, I may have missed others but reflecting back on the last list of candidates who would be better and why ?

badtoro

I hope a decent candidate will run against him.

L1011

bubblypop wrote: »

Has a serving president ever died?

Erskine Childers. Initially FF wanted to replace him with his wife without an election, in the end he got replaced by Cearbhall O'Dalaigh (without an election) who resigned and was replaced by Hillery (without an election!). Hillery served 14 years without ever being voted in by the public.

O'Dalaigh would have died in office had he not resigned and of course Lenihan and McGuinness also died before the term they ran for expired.

TomOnBoard

I'm delighted that we're having an election and that MDH is running. I hope there's lots of candidates. Proper democracy at work is a truly great thing!!

GarIT

touts wrote: »

Let him stand but let him be opposed. He has returned the presidency to the old man sitting in the park. Compared to the likes of Mary Robinson and Mary Mcaleese he has don't little or nothing. An election will expose that.

And imagine if someone as far on the right wing of the political spectrum broke his promise not to run again and was looking to be reappointed unopposed for another 7 years. The media would be screaming about fascist dictatorship and there would be a large angry mob outside the Aras tonight led by the more vocal members of our Dail. But because he is a leftist quasi-communist the media and mob don't want to call it what it is. Undemocratic.

Let there be a proper election and let him stand on his paltry record. I won't vote for him.

You mean because he was popular people want him to get in again but if he was unpopular people wouldn't, makes sense to me.

[Deleted User]

Has a serving president ever died?

downwesht

They are like a couple of drunks that won't leave the bar at closing time........

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

Matt Barrett wrote:

"Gender equality is a right, not a gift"

Matt Barrett wrote:

â€œWe must never let down our guard, and confront, not just violence, but prejudice and disrespect wherever it arises."

Are these statements really original? Has he said or did anything that would stand him out from anyone else?

touts

Let him stand but let him be opposed. He has returned the presidency to the old man sitting in the park. Compared to the likes of Mary Robinson and Mary Mcaleese he has don't little or nothing. An election will expose that.

And imagine if someone as far on the right wing of the political spectrum broke his promise not to run again and was looking to be reappointed unopposed for another 7 years. The media would be screaming about fascist dictatorship and there would be a large angry mob outside the Aras tonight led by the more vocal members of our Dail. But because he is a leftist quasi-communist the media and mob don't want to call it what it is. Undemocratic.

Let there be a proper election and let him stand on his paltry record. I won't vote for him.

L1011

Just actually remembered there are less qualifying councils than in 2011 also - 31 rather than 34. If they do nominate and someone 'does a Davis' and keeps getting nominations after they had the 5 that could become significant.

GarIT

L1011 wrote: »

getting Norris nominated

I would be sickened if he got elected.

I don't particularly like Michael D. Higgins, but I'd pick him over Norris by a mile.

L1011

Assuming FG/FF/SF/Labour sit out any Oireachtas noms, that leaves 34 Dail and 16 Senate votes for nominations - going to be difficult to get 1 let alone 2 out of that. Of course SF may still nominate someone but if they nominate one of their own that basically slams the door on Craughwell via that route

After the clowncar last time out I could see parties trying to sit on their councillors to stop that route - last time there didn't seem to be any real efforts that way and indeed Labour councillors were asked to assist in getting Norris nominated (and they had a much higher % of the total too) Theres, what, five councils in the country that don't have a clear FF+FG majority? And zero where FF+FG+SF isn't a strong majority.

James Brown

For Forks Sake wrote: »

The name of Joan Freeman keeps getting bandied about (she founded Pieta House and is currently in the Senate).

I'm sure the above is how she will be introduced - she's also an Iona Institute member, sister of Theresa Lowe and aunt of Maria Stein of the same parish.

Unsurprisingly Mattie McGrath seems to be the one pushing her nomination

Where in the world...did she spring from?

For Forks Sake

The name of Joan Freeman keeps getting bandied about (she founded Pieta House and is currently in the Senate).

I'm sure the above is how she will be introduced - she's the sister of Theresa Lowe and aunt of Maria Stein of the Iona Institute.

Unsurprisingly Mattie McGrath seems to be the one pushing her nomination

oscarBravo

Johnnycanyon wrote: »

Refer it to the Supreme Court .

Only if he thought it was unconstitutional, which it isn't.

James Brown

8j1w94vbmnlt05 wrote: »

Does anybody remember anything exceptional he said or did?

"Gender equality is a right, not a gift"

“We must never let down our guard, and confront, not just violence, but prejudice and disrespect wherever it arises."

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

Does anybody remember anything exceptional he said or did?

L1011

Johnnycanyon wrote: »

You are obviously not au fait with the Constitution either... letter asked the President to invoke Article 26, which allows the President – after consulting the Council of State – to refer a Bill to the Supreme Court to test its constitutionality.

And when found to be constitutional, which it inevitably would have been (and rapidly), he would have had to sign it in to law. So you wanted him to perform a populist waste of money for no reason?

Also, one letter may have requested the (pointless) referral. There were large blocs calling for a refusal to sign at all as if that was a power he held.

James Brown

8j1w94vbmnlt05 wrote: »

Why do people think he's a great president?

Represents the country well. Is well spoken and knowledgeable on many issues.

Here's a scare; Sean Gallagher may be looking to run again. He's contacted local councils telling them how they should go about nominations.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/sean-gallagher-encourages-councils-to-nominate-presidential-candidates-854269.html

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

Why do people think he's a great president?

Hotblack Desiato

'Liar' :rolleyes: ? Not if that was his intention at the time. People are allowed to change their point of view. We will see if voters who supported Higgins the first time around will change their mind or not. I expect him to win easily against any possible candidate.

Johnnycanyon wrote: »

You are obviously not au fait with the Constitution either... letter asked the President to invoke Article 26, which allows the President – after consulting the Council of State – to refer a Bill to the Supreme Court to test its constitutionality.

So you're saying that the president should refer a bill which is clearly constitutional to the Supreme Court, the SC proclaims it constitutional and then the president is obliged to sign it into law

Apart from wasting everyone's time and money, what exactly has that achieved? (apart from wasting everyone's time and money being some sort of populist leftist objective in itself...)

Johnnycanyon

L1011 wrote: »

You don't understand the Constitution.

You are obviously not au fait with the Constitution either... letter asked the President to invoke Article 26, which allows the President – after consulting the Council of State – to refer a Bill to the Supreme Court to test its constitutionality.

Johnnycanyon

Sam Russell wrote: »

The bill was constitutional so he signed it into law. What else could he do?

Refer it to the Supreme Court .

James Brown

I'm glad. He's the best president we've had IMO. There is generally an element of ego and novelty for many running, however he's proved himself to be a great ambassador.

ancapailldorcha

Mod: No more ranting please. This is a forum for serious discussion.

WoollyRedHat

I’m going file this into the I ‘don’t give a damn’ cabinet. He’s acted statesmanlike in what is largely a ceremonial role. If people really don’t want him, vote for somebody else.. not like he defacto gets it. I do think he should have a big party and invite everyone if he wins 2nd term though.. except people from Cavan.

pixelburp

Johnnycanyon wrote: »

Fupp him, the president who goes on about a social Europe and yet he aided the blue shirts by signing the water bill which would have heaped more financial hardship on people.

Constitutional experts can confirm or deny this, but our President has no executive powers to block or refuse to sign a bill. He can only refer it to lawyers if he suspects its unconstitutional. This isn't America.

It's all well and good going "rhubarb rhubarb, bloody politicians", and god knows there's enough reason to hold elected officials to account - but it helps to at least understand the limits and ceilings of those in power.

In fact if I recall , Higgins made this point abundantly clear in the TV debates - having to correct about 2 or 3 pie-in-the-sky candidates who thought they could stand on the soapbox and waffle on about performing all sorts of populist things. So to the OP what I'd say persuaded people was a candidate who understood the Constitution

(again, correct me if I'm wrong)

L1011

Johnnycanyon wrote: »

Fupp him, the president who goes on about a social Europe and yet he aided the blue shirts by signing the water bill which would have heaped more financial hardship on people.

You don't understand the Constitution.

Sam Russell

Johnnycanyon wrote: »

Fupp him, the president who goes on about a social Europe and yet he aided the blue shirts by signing the water bill which would have heaped more financial hardship on people.

The bill was constitutional so he signed it into law. What else could he do?

pixelburp

realdanbreen wrote: »

I never said people voted for him en masse and I never said anything about executive power. He said one term, now he's going again, therefore he lied or is there another word for it?

You literally said:

Many voted for him because he was only going for one term and wasn't trying to hog the job for 14 years.

The inference seemed clear enough, you're imply he somehow deceived voters who only voted for him because of a promise to serve a single term. And if you don't think people en-masse voted, then why even bring it up as a rod to beat him with?

Beyond his age being a negative - to which I'd be a little reluctant myself - do you feel he has done a bad job as president?