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

GarIT

Sam Russell wrote: »

How could they have sufficient life experience to stand on their record?

If you feel they don't, then don't vote for them, don't exclude them from running. I'd be fairly likely to vote for someone without much relevant experience but I'd never consider not letting them run.

GarIT

Creol1 wrote: »

We have an extremely rigorous system in place to limit the chances that an unsuitable person would be nominated for the presidency.

Four local authorities or 20 Oireachtas members is a very high hurdle for prospective candidates to pass. Then the nominee actually has to win the election.

Are we really to have so little confidence in the ability of either our representatives or the electorate itself to decide who is suitable that we actually have to have further constitutional restrictions based on age?

What I was thinking, but you said it much better.

realdanbreen

Who ever gets elected should I believe as a matter of principle settle on a salary for the term of about 50K approx. As things stand they have a free mansion, free grub, free utilities, fuel, no expenditure of any kind. Unlike the rest of us they don't have bills or outgoings to pay from one end of the day to the other.
That would soon separate the genuine man/woman of the people from the wafflers.

alaimacerc

Creol1 wrote: »

We have an extremely rigorous system in place to limit the chances that an unsuitable person would be nominated for the presidency.

Perhaps you missed the extensive field of muppets last time?

Sam Russell

GarIT wrote: »

If you feel they don't, then don't vote for them, don't exclude them from running. I'd be fairly likely to vote for someone without much relevant experience but I'd never consider not letting them run.

Having a difficult job of getting a nomination is certainly a good start. A minimum age is only a temporary problem, as they just wait until they are old enough. It is possible that a pop idol type may be proposed and would devalue genuine candidates.

The last election should be an example for making it more difficult to stand. Having every possible candidate who could persuade four of the Ballygobackwards Councils in the country to nominate them, and then having their past dragged out for scrutiny by a rabid media, in the era of fake news, is something that reduces the status of the President to a reality TV formula.

It is not seemly for our Presidential hopefuls to be reduced to a reality TV contest.

GarIT

Sam Russell wrote: »

Having a difficult job of getting a nomination is certainly a good start. A minimum age is only a temporary problem, as they just wait until they are old enough. It is possible that a pop idol type may be proposed and would devalue genuine candidates.

The last election should be an example for making it more difficult to stand. Having every possible candidate who could persuade four of the Ballygobackwards Councils in the country to nominate them, and then having their past dragged out for scrutiny by a rabid media, in the era of fake news, is something that reduces the status of the President to a reality TV formula.

It is not seemly for our Presidential hopefuls to be reduced to a reality TV contest.

Age won't change any of what you mentioned.

Sam Russell

GarIT wrote: »

Age won't change any of what you mentioned.

It widens the possible field, and would include sports stars, TV 'personalities', etc.

Having good name recognition increases the chances of being considered, whether suitable or not.

alaimacerc

Sam Russell wrote: »

The last election should be an example for making it more difficult to stand. Having every possible candidate who could persuade four of the Ballygobackwards Councils in the country to nominate them, and then having their past dragged out for scrutiny by a rabid media, in the era of fake news, is something that reduces the status of the President to a reality TV formula.

None of them even withing roaring distance of ever seeing 45, much less 35, ever again, though. So a bit of a tangent from that issue -- unless it's to illustrate the point that some 34yo's would surely be better candidates than some of that shower.

I'd not be at all dismayed if the nomination requirements were tightened up a bit. In theory at present you could have a field of 19. 19! The horror, the horror...

GarIT

Sam Russell wrote: »

It widens the possible field, and would include sports stars, TV 'personalities', etc.

As you pointed out they can just wait, like you suggest for everyone else in the current situation.

TomOnBoard

Creol1 wrote: »

We have an extremely rigorous system in place to limit the chances that an unsuitable person would be nominated for the presidency.

Four local authorities or 20 Oireachtas members is a very high hurdle for prospective candidates to pass. Then the nominee actually has to win the election.

Are we really to have so little confidence in the ability of either our representatives or the electorate itself to decide who is suitable that we actually have to have further constitutional restrictions based on age?

Hope to fcuk the rigorous system doesn't exclude this kind gentleman.

https://www.independent.ie/business/farming/rural-life/you-never-see-ordinary-joe-soaps-getting-into-high-office-roscommon-farmer-wants-to-be-president-37114410.html

realdanbreen

realdanbreen wrote: »

Who ever gets elected should I believe as a matter of principle settle on a salary for the term of about 50K approx. As things stand they have a free mansion, free grub, free utilities, fuel, no expenditure of any kind. Unlike the rest of us they don't have bills or outgoings to pay from one end of the day to the other.
That would soon separate the genuine man/woman of the people from the wafflers.

Anyone else think 50k is plenty?

CircleofLife

He tore Mitt Romney to pieces in a radio debate.

dulpit

realdanbreen wrote: »

Anyone else think 50k is plenty?

No. They are the head of state, they represent the nation. Give them a decent salary. In the grand scheme of things a 50K salary or a 250K salary has no real bearing on the overall cost of the presidency.

pawdee

I'd vote for this lad:

https://www.independent.ie/business/farming/rural-life/you-never-see-ordinary-joe-soaps-getting-into-high-office-roscommon-farmer-wants-to-be-president-37114410.html

He looks like a fella on a Led Zeppelin album cover. The guy carrying the big bunch of sticks on his back?

Sean Gallagher looks like he should be wearing a black bomber jacket and an earpiece. He looks more suited to nightclub security than high office. Just a couple of observations but I'll probably receive another warning.

realdanbreen

dulpit wrote: »

No. They are the head of state, they represent the nation. Give them a decent salary. In the grand scheme of things a 50K salary or a 250K salary has no real bearing on the overall cost of the presidency.

Fair enough that's your opinion. I believe a 50-60k salary would separate the genuine people who care from the Grá mo chroí wafflers and pontificators.

Kermit.de.frog

I think Higgins has done a reasonable job for what the job is.

However personally I think he is too old and should step away at this point. I also don't think it would be good to return to the days of the imagery of the head of state being some old folks home for retirement.

I never agreed with the nonsense that there should be no election. This is suppose to be a democracy. I don't see for what reason so many thought Higgins should just be given the job again.

He should absolutely have to contest and if people vote for him then fair enough.

flatty

He stood up and announced, for the sole reason that he felt it gave him a better chance of being elected, that he categorically, if elected, would not seek a second term. If he now will not honour that absolutely unequivocal statement, he is exactly the kind of two faced politician who should be denied Office. He was neither a bad nor a good president, just average as expected. Seven years is plenty. Someone else should be given a turn.

flatty

realdanbreen wrote: »

realdanbreen wrote: »

Who ever gets elected should I believe as a matter of principle settle on a salary for the term of about 50K approx. As things stand they have a free mansion, free grub, free utilities, fuel, no expenditure of any kind. Unlike the rest of us they don't have bills or outgoings to pay from one end of the day to the other.
That would soon separate the genuine man/woman of the people from the wafflers.

Anyone else think 50k is plenty?

GarIT

realdanbreen wrote: »

Anyone else think 50k is plenty?

I think it depends on where you're coming from, where I live most people would consider that being rich. But a doctor on 300k or lawyer, account or software engineer would think it's absolutely tiny.

L1011

If you want to ensure that only personally wealthy people can ever take the job, sure.

TomOnBoard

flatty wrote: »

He stood up and announced, for the sole reason that he felt it gave him a better chance of being elected, that he categorically, if elected, would not seek a second term. If he now will not honour that absolutely unequivocal statement, he is exactly the kind of two faced politician who should be denied Office. He was neither a bad nor a good president, just average as expected. Seven years is plenty. Someone else should be given a turn.

Denied office??

Do you mean

1. the electorate should consider that he had said ( if your statement is true) that " he categorically, if elected, would not seek a second term" during the process of making up their minds as to whether they would vote for him in a fair and free election, OR

2. he should be prevented from being allowed to run as a candidate?

[Deleted User]

He lives rent free in the aras, he gets driven around by a driver in a car he doesn't have to spend a penny on.
He travels the world paid for by the tax payer.
I'm nor begrudging him any of it, but his salary on top of all that, is very high. 50k would be enough

Pugzilla

GarIT wrote: »

I think it depends on where you're coming from, where I live most people would consider that being rich.

Where are you from? Genuine question. Can't think of anywhere in Ireland where a 50k income is rich.

GarIT

Pugzilla wrote: »

Where are you from? Genuine question. Can't think of anywhere in Ireland where a 50k income is rich.

Tallaght, Springfield. 30k and not having to work with the general public would be considered well off here, almost everyone works in retail or a trade.

Praetorian

The lie about the 2nd term annoys me quite a lot personally. I voted for him the first time as I found him quite likable and I thought it was great that he was only going to do one term. I cannot get over a lie of this magnitude. There is no other word for it.

I think his presidency has been okay but not nearly as strong as the two ladies who came before him. I hope the country can come up with a better more honest candidate.

eagle eye

So nobody can change their mind anymore?

Like maybe he is proud of how well he has done in the job and feels like he should stay on.
It's quite possible that a lot of people have urged him to stay on.
I think he should go again, he is a very good man.

alaimacerc

Praetorian wrote: »

The lie about the 2nd term annoys me quite a lot personally. I voted for him the first time as I found him quite likable and I thought it was great that he was only going to do one term. I cannot get over a lie of this magnitude. There is no other word for it.

I guess "change of mind" is technically a phrase.

I really don't see why this is a big deal for people. Is it the mere fact of the flip-flop? Is it the length of time in office? A deep-felt need to get a vote on it every seven years?

oscarBravo

Praetorian wrote: »

I cannot get over a lie of this magnitude. There is no other word for it.

So it's your considered opinion that, at the time he said he only intended to seek a single term, he knew that to be untrue?

Because that would be a lie. If he believed it to be true at the time, it wasn't a lie.

This bizarre idea that changing one's mind is the One True Unforgivable Sin needs to die in a fire.

FreudianSlippers

realdanbreen wrote: »

Fair enough that's your opinion. I believe a 50-60k salary would separate the genuine people who care from the Grá mo chroí wafflers and pontificators.

No, it just closes off the Presidency to anyone with a good job.

FreudianSlippers

Praetorian wrote: »

The lie about the 2nd term annoys me quite a lot personally. I voted for him the first time as I found him quite likable and I thought it was great that he was only going to do one term. I cannot get over a lie of this magnitude. There is no other word for it.

I think his presidency has been okay but not nearly as strong as the two ladies who came before him. I hope the country can come up with a better more honest candidate.

I'm sure you've said nothing 7 years ago that you've changed your mind about.