realdanbreen wrote: » It's gas the way you mods all gather round to support one another and high five:D BTW I've heard of a 'flock of geese' or a 'herd of cattle', what's a bunch of Mods called?
bobbyss wrote: » Sean Gallagher. Who is he again? Haven't heard much about him in the last seven years. What's be been doing since the last time? Very low profile. Think maybe people may need a crash course on him.
realdanbreen wrote: » I don't know what he said about his health 7 years ago. I do know that 7 years ago he said he would only take the job for one 7 year term. I also know that this was put out there as one of his selling points. I also now know that he is just another cute hoor.
realdanbreen wrote: » So you reckon polls & stats is the way to go? Maybe you should check with Paddy Power who paid out on Hillary winning the election and also paid out on Brexit being defeated before the actual results came in , and ask them what they think of polls & stats
Sam Russell wrote: » He is running as an independent - so not for FF.
Hotblack Desiato wrote: » PP will do anything for publicity, that includes deliberately taking a loss on a specific high-profile bet (while simultaneously raking it in on all the others) or paying out early just for the publicity, not caring what the actual outcome is because the publicity is worth the possible loss.
Hotblack Desiato wrote: » But you said yourself you didn't vote for him anyway. This would be like me ranting about Paul Murphy standing for election again as he is entitled to do, when I didn't vote for him the last time either... pointless. Some people's vote may have been influenced the last time on the basis of him being a one-term president. But he won by a large margin and you can't tell how many people's vote was influenced by that. If they're so unhappy they can vote this time for whatever no-mark senator runs against him.
realdanbreen wrote: » Again you are missing the point. It has nothing to do with me voting or not voting or liking or not liking him-I'm sure he is a nice guy. It has all to do with him promising one thing, and making a point of it, in order to broaden his appeal and then doing the complete opposite.
Matt Barrett wrote: Higgins can be punished in the voting booth if anyone wants to show their ire.
ligerdub wrote: » And if he gets a 2nd term without an election?
TomOnBoard wrote: » There's going to be an election alright.
realdanbreen wrote: » You're completely missing the point. It's not whether PP were seeking publicity or not it is that the Polls & stats were totally wrong!
GarIT wrote: » I'd also consider a strong republican if there were one, maybe Gerry, someone who can help push towards the possibility of a united Ireland referendum if Brexit goes to ****.
eastwest wrote: » On what basis?
GarIT wrote: » I voted for Gallagher as I thought we needed a businessman up front representing us to help us through the recession. This time around I think someone representing arts and culture like Higgins would be more appropriate. I'd also consider a strong republican if there were one, maybe Gerry, someone who can help push towards the possibility of a united Ireland referendum if Brexit goes to ****.
Hotblack Desiato wrote: » Nope they predicted a close result, they were only slightly off, enough to swing the outcome but still only slightly off. Any poll has a margin of error.
Creol1 wrote: » Can anyone confirm whether or not President Higgins has referred any legislation to the Supreme Court? I remember he convened the Council of State over the X-Case legislation but in the end did not refer.
realdanbreen wrote: » So on the day before the election when the bookies were offering Trump @ 10/3 and Hillary @ 1/4 they were working on polls that were only 'slightly off' ?
dulpit wrote: » Miggledy should/will win. But I do recognise there is an element of change needed. The problem is that with FF & FG backing him officially, and SF possibly nominating their own, it leave the likely contenders to be 1 independent (if they can get the votes from TDs/senators - I did read somewhre that there is talk of an informal primary between the likes of Craughwell/Ó Céidigh/etc to get 1 nomination), 1 SF and MDH. He'll romp home with that sort of competition. It is important there is a vote though, if you turned 18 just after the last presidential election and we don't have one now the first time you get to vote for president is when you are 31. Which is a bit mad...
Matt Barrett wrote: » For me how many terms didn't come into it, except that it would be regrettable if he didn't run again. One of my local councilors won the seat by campaigning she'd no interest in becoming a TD and only wanted to become a Councillor to represent the community...she didn't even finish one term before she ran and became a TD. Fair enough, but I'm sure many voted thinking they were getting local representation, (she went on to back cancelling the only bus to her neighbourhood). That would be something to kick up about, but here you have the ambassadorial role of President and with both cases, the people will ultimately decide so I don't see the reason you seem so annoyed by this. Higgins can be punished in the voting booth if anyone wants to show their ire.
Creol1 wrote: » A lot of people are saying this but when we had the chance to open the presidency to 21 to 35 year olds in 2015 it was crushingly defeated. I voted Yes and I hope people making the above point did likewise, because it's a tad hypocritical to place such importance on people under 35 having a vote in an election if you are opposed to their right to stand in said election.
Creol1 wrote: » : towards the end of the campaign when his election seemed secure, he gave a more circumspect if immodest answer when asked about his pledge to serve only one term, remarking, "one can never underestimate the love of the people".
GarIT wrote: » I think the people who voted no were just slow. I've heard so many arguments of "Most 21 year olds wouldn't be mature enough to represent the country", I had to explain to them that they weren't voting to elect a 21 year old, they were voting on whether or not to allow 21 year olds or even 34 year olds to be voted for, and if the particular person that ran for election wasn't the right person for it then don't vote for them but don't prevent them from running for election in the first place. And on top of that they had to get existing TDs or local councils to permit them to run for election so it's not like any random 21 year old could just walk into the election and be taken seriously in the debates etc. It's incredibly undemocratic and infuriates me. Even 21 would have been undemocratic, if you can vote you should be allowed to be a candidate. This is a much more serious type of discrimination than the gay marriage referendum yet it doesn't get 1% of the attention. Not letting a certain group of people participate in democracy is much more serious than not letting some people marry, imagine if it was women that couldn't be president, that would be changed fairly quickly.
Sam Russell wrote: » One thing about 21 year olds, is that eventually they will be 35 year olds. Women will always be women, so excluding them would certainly be wrong, just as excluding any defined group.
GarIT wrote: » This is a much more serious type of discrimination than the gay marriage referendum yet it doesn't get 1% of the attention.
Sam Russell wrote: » One thing about 21 year olds, is that eventually they will be 35 year olds. Women will always be women, so excluding them would certainly be wrong, just as excluding any defined group. I cannot think of a single suitable candidate for President who is under 45 years. How could they have sufficient life experience to stand on their record? I would be in favour of increasing the age to 45 rather than reducing it.
