flookdgates wrote: » Yeah it does seem pointless and a shameful waste of our money. I don't understand why Midget Parasite Higgins is popular or what he has achieved during his presidency? It seems like a big meme being forced by the journal and similar clickbait sites that he is the nation's harmless old grandad with the Michael "Tea" Higgins tea cozy etc. In reality he is a short-statured and short-tempered little commie afraid of having a to get a real job, aggressively calling others wanker on radio when losing the debate.
flookdgates wrote: » Funny...the people stating that Higgin's private life doesn't matter are the same ones who drone on and on about President Trump's personal life and whether he had an affair with a Playboy model. In fact the bestseller book Fire and Fury was so popular due to the fact that it provided details on the president's personal habits (eating cheeseburgers in bed, diet coke addiction, getting his steaks well-done with ketchup). The public are interested in these things whether you like it or not. Higgins lied about being a one-term president so why is it inconceivable that he is lying about his sexuality.
Peregrinus wrote: » What Victor said. The President's powers are insignficant, until they're signficant.
aaakev wrote: » Iv stumbled out of gay bars at 2am, does that make me gay?
3DataModem wrote: » The one thing he could have done was actually respect the constitutional process after the marriage referendum and delay signing until the challenges were exhausted. Of course because the right side won, it want an issue, but his job is to defend constitution and he failed to respect it... preferring to appear populist and progressive.
Bacchus wrote: » Are you suggesting so if he did come out, you'd use his sexuality to condemn him?
Beechwoodspark wrote: » It’s odd but this link seems to be deadhttp://www.politics.ie/forum/irish-presidential-election-2011/173180-michael-d-higgins-sex-scandal-allegations-irish-mail-sunday.html Anyone know what this “scandal” amounted to?
Today's front page story in the Irish Daily Mail is that an allegation of a sexual nature has been made against Michael D Higgins and that a statement was made to the Gardai last Friday. The allegations go back 25 years. The complainant is a 47 year old 4FM DJ Niall Boylan. The story quotes Michael D's campaign as stating that there is no truth to the allegations, that the complainant only himself heard the allegations third hand and has no direct knowledge of what he is complaining about and that Gardai do not seem to be taking the allegations too seriously and that no further investigation is likely to take place. Michael D's campaign team say that they were contacted by a radio station Friday about the allegations before a complaint was made to the Gardai.
chrislad wrote: » Depends on why you were stumbling really I had to laugh at this todayhttps://www.rte.ie/news/politics/2018/0730/981920-presidential-election/ You can't be, because you have no actual power.
flookdgates wrote: » There were rumours about Jimmy Saville, Bill Cosby and Kevin Spacey for years too but the victims were hesitant to come up against such powerful and well-loved figures. Those that did were not believed. I've heard the sexual allegations rumours about Higgins from many different sources but it's tough to get a prosecution so many years after the incident took place. Plus you'd be going up against the cozy cartel of the Irish media.
flookdgates wrote: » Absolutely not. Like I said, there is no stigma attached to being gay in Ireland in the current year. Which makes it all the more perplexing why he is continuing the rumoured lie. It would probably increase his popularity among the progressives to be honest.
ohnonotgmail wrote: » So now you are suggesting that not only is he homosexual but that he is a criminal as well? Probably best if you quit while you are behind.
flookdgates wrote: » Take it up against the Irish Daily Mail and Niall Boylan. If an everyday joe is sexually abused by a famous person in power, how can they ever be believed when people like you do nothing but cast doubt? I can't imagine how intimidating it must have been for the victims.
Bacchus wrote: » Can you at least provide a link with your accusations? Instead of a vague "someone else said it before so therefore QED".
Pretzeluck wrote: » Seriously, his power are almost nonexistent.
rivegauche wrote: » Charles J. Hockey and Brian Lend-a-Hand Snr. found the FF nominated President not so impotent as they had imagined back in the early eighties. They basically tried to stage a silent coup assuming their FF nominated President would allow them to take control of the Country with a minority government. McAlese would have had the power to prevent billions of odious bank debt being foisted on the Citizens of Ireland but she did nothing. She could have kept that bill of law circling for ages while taking "advice" but she rubber-stamped it. In fact, any President has the power to be damned awkward if they so wish in the interests of the State but most are satisfied to live in a mansion for 14 years drawing down a quarter million a year and being driven around by a chauffeur while surrounded by sycophants.
rivegauche wrote: » She could have kept that bill of law circling for ages while taking "advice" but she rubber-stamped it.
atilladehun wrote: » As mentioned the irish president is in charge of making sure the government don't break the constitution. The president is also required to meet other dignitaries as the president of all the people of the republic. Not just those who elected him. Politicians in the government can't do this because they ran on some angle and should be acting on that. They're hugely different roles and can't be mixed.
rivegauche wrote: » The President could have spent months determining if it was legal or not and to be honest I think it would have taken months for any legal professional to work through everything that was involved in that bill. I contend it was not legal to have odious debt placed upon the shoulders of the Irish public and McAlese didn't even bother to try to get legality of the bill reviewed. The speed of her response to me was very depressing. McAlese was a rubber-stamp President. When it mattered Hillery was not.
seamus wrote: » As the man above points out, this is not correct, there is a process to be followed, any bill can't be kept "circling" for as long as you like. I also find it funny that people support blatantly anti-democracy things like filibustering and abusing the supreme court to delay bills, when it suits them. If the President referred a tax cut to the supreme court because he/she didn't like the bill, you'd probably be spitting feathers. In our system the President is supposed the ultimate protector of the democratic system, a safeguard against abuse of process by the parliament. Us-style partisan game playing would be a betrayal of the role.
