Why bother electing a president

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.

The presidency is not about achieving anything.

If people here ever read the constitution they would see that the office holds an important position in protecting the constitution and the laws of the land.

It holds the power to send back bills to the Oireacthas if there are doubts about it or to call a council of state to discuss a matter.

The president is also our Head of State which is an important role in representing the state abroad and receiving diplomats in the country.

Insulting the current President as a "parasite" etc is just childish. Do you expect the head of state to be badly paid?

Also, he won that debate on Newstalk (before he ran for president) hands down against a right wing American.

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.

There's a huge difference between the US president and the Irish one. Completely different offices.

Also, Higgins didn't lie about the one term, he simply changed his mind as he's entitled to do. If you don't like it then simply don't vote for him. Easy.

It’s odd but this link seems to be dead

http://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?

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.

you will have to clarify what you mean here because it was the court of appeal that decided that the returning officer could issue the certificate confirming the result. The president can do nothing before this happens.

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.

Well one is the most powerful man in the world who rules via Twitter without a filter, has had multiple affairs, has been caught on tape displaying his disregard for women (grab em by the ...), is a serial liar, has called "black nations" sh*tholes, uses his office to promote his friends commercial interests, etc.

The other is a figurehead leader of a small nation and MIGHT be gay.

You don't see the subtle difference here that might explain why the personal life of one is an important issue, while the personal life of the other isn't?

Fine, it's a point of interest for some but does it really matter if he actually is gay? What would that have to do with his role as president? I personally don't believe it but could see how a political figure of the 70s and 80s... even the 90s and 00s... would not want that public as it would derail their career and lives in Ireland of those times. So he lived (hypothetically) a lie due to the era he was born in to. 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 dead

http://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?

It amounted to a radio DJ pulling a desperate stunt to keep his name in the media:

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.

Boylan is a bastard child of Joe Duffy, George Hook and Adrian Kennedy.

Except that rather than discussing other people's petty whinges, Boylan frequently injects himself into the stories and makes them all about him.

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

It’s odd but this link seems to be dead

http://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?

the whole site seems to have died

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.

Fixed your post.

So, you've no issue with him if he was gay, and you believe it would be of benefit to him politically to 'come out'. Yet you have an issue with this rumour (and that's all it is... a rumour) and are saying there's some sort of scandalous cover up?

I'm not getting what the fuss is about TBH.

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.

... and now going from a rumour that he might be gay, to being a sexual predator like Jimmy Saville. Riiiiiight. And it's all covered up by the Irish media.

Honestly, if there was truth behind that, people need to speak up for themselves but what you're saying is slanderous.

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.

There is nothing to cast doubt on. None of the "victims" have ever made an allegation about him. The only allegation comes from a radio DJ known to be a ****stirrer of the highest order.

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.

The president cannot do this. If they doubts about the constitutionality of the bill they can refer it to the supreme court. If the supreme courts finds that it is constitutional the president must sign the bill.

RTE elected our current president, and had to pay out very substantial damages to Sean Gallagher for the privilege of electing Michael D.
So many gullible people switched from Sean to Michael over a fake tweet.

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.

Absolute twaddle. We could come up with any number of other ways of deciding to refer bills to the SC. The taoiseach is the taoiseach of the whole of the country, not just those who elected him. The presidency is a political third nipple.

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.

By circling I mean actually referring to Court, reviewing their response, querying another point which may not be legal and another until you as the protector of the interests of the citizens of Ireland are satisfied that what is proposed is legal and only then shifting a debt of tens of billion euro on to the shoulders of Irish Citizens by which time the Government with time pressing upon them may actually have done what they should have done which was to burn the bondholders. That is the power that that President had which she chose not to exercise.