Marian Finucane

FrancieBrady wrote: »

FF and FG would certainly have been in like Flynn with a candidate had he vacated.

Like others here they don't like him but know that any move to criticise him or run against him would backfire. Cowardice is the real reason, not money.

Why don’t SF run a canditate,they can’t sit on the fence forever.

What evidence or back up do you have for suggesting cowardice?

FrancieBrady wrote: »

There were plenty of stories of people being groomed for a run.
They did their polls and research and realised that the Irish were mostly happy with the incumbent.
They decided not to challenge him if he decided to stay for a second term. They are entitled to though.

I suspect it was cowardice - the fear of losing not money that dissuaded them.

*Far as I know SF ran Martin McG last time out.

That’s fair enough Francie.

alaimacerc wrote: »

Ah, so basically, assuming the worst of motives on top of vague rumour. People I dislike always do things for the worst possible reasons. Or so it makes me feel better to tell myself!

Even if possible candidates were being looked at, big difference if this is in a hypothetical "Michael D doesn't run again" scenario -- in theory we're all supposedly still on tenterhooks, recall -- vs a supposed embittered attempt to unseat him.

No assuming on 'vague' anything. FF hedged their bets (refused to say whether they would run a candidate or not) until it was fairly certain that MH would run for another term.
Even there erstwhile member and now political pundit called it a smart move to row in behind MH for a second term.

They hadn't the balls to run against basically but would have run a candidate had he left. It would have cost the same money either way, so money can't have been the issue.

alaimacerc wrote: »

That's entirely different from your initial claim they definitely intended to run someone. Then demoted to "stories", and now this waffle.

I see no particular reason to impute noble motivations to FF (*suppresses guffaws at the idea*). But the "rumours and assume the worst" narrative could equally be spun about SF (for example). Definitely "stories" about them looking to run someone, with specific names being touted. So shall we conclude they're gutless wonders too? Or is it purely down to down which colour of partisan goggles one happens to be wearing?

I said it earlier. They all responded to the focus groups and poll findings and decided not to challenge him.

Have all the other parties figured out that focus groups and polls show that the majority of the public are more than happy with his tenure. Yes they have.

I said nothing about 'gutless wonders'. I said it was cowardice and it is. They are afraid to run against a clearly very popular president.

Something a few of you cannot get over.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I said it earlier. They all responded to the focus groups and poll findings and decided not to challenge him.

Here's your original comment this whole string's responding to.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

FF and FG would certainly have been in like Flynn with a candidate had he vacated.

When did you pivot from "FF and FG" to "all"? If anything you seemed keen to give SF a pass, if your tangential comments on them relate to this point at all.

I said nothing about 'gutless wonders'. I said it was cowardice and it is.

So, some petulance about a pretty clearly semantically equivalent paraphrase, and rehashing of your whole original assertion. That stands on no evidence whatsoever other than the notions in your own head. That all advances matters tremendously.

Something a few of you cannot get over.

You're certainly not shy about being fancifully presumptuous of others' motivations, be it that of politicians you dislike, or of posters merely pointing out the gaping holes in your own wild inferences from scant -- if any -- facts.

Can't find fault in what people actually did? Why, just assume out of whole cloth they did the right thing for some utterly terrible reason. That way one is entirely guaranteed never to have to change one's mind about anything.

This one could run and run………. ……

We got two bedded in for the long haul...... there’s form there for sure.

Like Union discussions,dancing around the head of the pin, but saying nothing,deflecting,denying the obvious.......

Uhmmmm ………………

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I see SF are probably gonna run a candidate even if Higgins decided to go again.

A few new SF supporters ffrom the disgruntled here?

Will you guys be 'brave' enough to vote for what you want, Higgins gone?

I will vote for Martin Ferris if he goes up against the incumbent.

You gotta stand by your word.

sligojoek wrote: »

Is there anything up to date that could be discussed. ? This stuff is 20 plus years ago. Has he a book for sale?

Book mentioned in the intro.

sligojoek wrote: »

Is there anything up to date that could be discussed. ? This stuff is 20 plus years ago. Has he a book for sale?

Thought he was fairly interesting myself. It's recent European history, some terrible things happened as in any war but nobody thought it could happen in Europe.
Interesting book I would think.

Birdsong wrote: »

Was it me or was Marian very rude to Ewan Blair, I thought from the outset she was sharp & not interested in what he was saying.

Besides the curt questions, I didn't understand the point of the interview. If you want to discuss apprenticeships, talk about the Irish system, which is relevant to the audience.

I have a feeling the Blair kid was foisted upon her by a PR company with connections.

Вашему собственному бычьему дерьму нельзя верить - V Putin

Oh wow, Jordan Peterson. This should be interesting.

Now he's yelling into the mic about how outrageous and monstrous it is that pronoun use be -- and I quote directly -- be "enforced". Right after his soliloquy about what a fine and fitting thing "enforced" -- again, his very word in this very interview -- monogamy is.

JBP wrote:

Rule 10: Be precise in your speech

Does not even have the small bit of brains...

See Marian is giving a human trafficker some air time.