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

AGC

Jim2007 wrote: »

He was not on a state visit to Switzerland. And in such situations the visiting head of state is the responsibility of the embassy and as already pointed out standard protocol was followed. Any any given day in Switzerland we probably have between 10 and 20 heads of states in the country.

More BS digging for no good reason other than trying to find cause for complaint.

Point taken in Geneva, along with New York probably most visited city.

No BS digging from here but it is not just reserved for State visits. It also would have been the PMUN office and not the Embassy involved.

Who do you think picks up the tab when Modi, the Royals or Biden are in Ireland?

batgoat

Dr Brown wrote: »

He could only find a hotel room for 3k ? I don't buy it.

If he could only find a room for 500 Euro per night then fair enough, but 3k is just taking the piss.

Higgins is the very definition of a champagne socialist/limousine liberal.

We actually don't even know if it was paid for by the state or the organiser. So it's a pretty overblown scandal at moment...

Also suspect he isn't particularly involved in choices of hotel.

dulpit

batgoat wrote: »

We actually don't even know if it was paid for by the state or the organiser. So it's a pretty overblown scandal at moment... Also suspect he isn't particularly involved in choices of hotel.

Yep, it's the Department of Foreign Affairs that does it.. Storm in a teacup comes to mind, and sour grapes from Gerard Craughwell.

jm08

Jim2007 wrote: »

Would you now? Well you were wrong. So how much more digging do you want to do???

Have you some sort of proof that the UN didn't pay for the keynote speaker's accommodation.

You also say that Switzerland has approx. 20 heads of state staying at any one time. Surely for security reasons alone they would have approved accommodation, all within the same area? Like when it comes to embassies, for security reasons they are usually all fairly close to each other - makes it easier to protect.

Dr Brown

batgoat wrote: »

We actually don't even know if it was paid for by the state or the organiser. So it's a pretty overblown scandal at moment... Also suspect he isn't particularly involved in choices of hotel.

The fact that Higgins office has remained silent indicates that the state did pay for the hotel.

eastwest

Dr Brown wrote: »

The fact that Higgins office has remained silent indicates that the state did pay for the hotel.

I'm not sure it does. A little bit of 1+1=3?

AGC

Dr Brown wrote: »

The fact that Higgins office has remained silent indicates that the state did pay for the hotel.

Why would they? The president can’t be FOI’d so why would this non story warrant a reply over many that could have been in the past.

Loafing Oaf

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Any sign of any of the bookies offering odds on this election. Usually the solidest indication of where the land lies in any political contest...

Well PP have finally got the finger out http://www.paddypower.com/politics?tab=ireland

MDH 1/5, which is verging on foregone conclusion but not quite there. My money's on Mattress Mick.:P

Sierra Oscar

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Well PP have finally got the finger out http://www.paddypower.com/politics?tab=ireland

MDH 1/5, which is verging on foregone conclusion but not quite there. My money's on Mattress Mick.:P

Not bad odds for Sean Gallagher at 16 / 1 considering the latest speculation is that he is set to enter the race in the coming days.

I doubt he would enter unless he has done significant polling to show he can win it.

This expenses stuff could do serious damage to Higgins if it gets traction in September.

eastwest

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

Not bad odds for Sean Gallagher at 16 / 1 considering the latest speculation is that he is set to enter the race in the coming days.

I doubt he would enter unless he has done significant polling to show he can win it.

This expenses stuff could do serious damage to Higgins if it gets traction in September.

It won't. Anyone with an ounce of sense will know that the President doesn't book hotel rooms for official business. He doesn't drove the car either, or change the oil in it. Or cook for visitors to the Aras.

pixelburp

It's an obvious attempt to generate controversy on what has amounted to the least controversial and broadly well-liked politician on the island. In a world of Trump and political leaders upending the kind of basic decency we used to expect of statesmen, some outlets are clearly gagging to stir up some bad faith towards Higgins. 3000 is a ludicrous amount for a hotel, but I'm not going to hold the President personally responsible, or indulge in selective outrage because - gasp - people at the highest levels of government get the good stuff.

This thread was only started because of various chips on shoulders over Higgins' past, but as President the man has operated with tact, grace and for all the blather about his age & running again, his seniority and generally positive demeanour has given him a "nice grandad" image that has gone down well with the public at large. It'll take a lot to undo that, short of evidence Higgins ... I dunno, eats puppies for breakfast.

honeybear

Gemma O Doherty also wants to run

dulpit

honeybear wrote: »

Gemma O Doherty also wants to run

Who?

Strazdas

dulpit wrote: »

Who?

She's a freelance journalist : not that well known though

Sad Professor

Part of the reason she's not better known is because of the Irish media's radio silence in response to her firing from the Indo for poking around too much.

I wouldn't vote for her personally, but it would be fun to watch the squirming if she got on the ballot and had to be given a platform.

dulpit

Sad Professor wrote: »

Part of the reason she's not better known is because of the Irish media's radio silence in response to her firing from the Indo for poking around too much.

I wouldn't vote for her personally, but it would be fun to watch the squirming if she got on the ballot and had to be given a platform.

I've taken a look at some of her tweets. It comes across that she's a little bit conspiracy-related. She seems to be anti-vax, anti-wind farms and bizarrely has been endorsed by Jim Corr. I see this going well...

Hurrache

Sad Professor wrote: »

but it would be fun to watch the squirming

The squirming would be from everyone watching in embarrassment.

Sad Professor

dulpit wrote: »

I've taken a look at some of her tweets. It comes across that she's a little bit conspiracy-related. She seems to be anti-vax, anti-wind farms and bizarrely has been endorsed by Jim Corr. I see this going well...

Have you seen the tweets or are you going on what others are saying? Because from what I've seen, the evidence for her being anti-vax is pretty pathetic. But yeah she does seem to have gone a bit conspiratorial.

Turnipman

eastwest wrote: »

It won't. Anyone with an ounce of sense will know that the President doesn't book hotel rooms for official business. He doesn't drove the car either, or change the oil in it. Or cook for visitors to the Aras.

So what does he do? (In additions to writing and delivering long-winded speeches that, more often than not, bore their listeners to sleep, and supporting the Galway hurlers/footballers/soccer players and Connacht rugby from the VIP seats?)

One of the main reasons that I'm not protesting about the Pope's visit is that I'm aware that the poor man will probably have to visit the Aras and sit through an interminable b0llocking from the great Castro supporter - a fate worse than death!)

blanch152

dulpit wrote: »

I've taken a look at some of her tweets. It comes across that she's a little bit conspiracy-related. She seems to be anti-vax, anti-wind farms and bizarrely has been endorsed by Jim Corr. I see this going well...

Another anti-vax candidate?

We already have the SF anti-vaxxer. The only good thing is that the anti-vax position would likely be completely discredited in a campaign.

Annasopra

Jim2007 wrote: »

Would you now? Well you were wrong. So how much more digging do you want to do???

Sorry what are you talking about? What evidence is there on any of this 3k hotel room

Annasopra

honeybear wrote: »

Gemma O Doherty also wants to run

She is against choice in pregnancy, vaccinations and trans rights. On that basis its a definite no from me.

eastwest

Hurrache wrote: »

The squirming would be from everyone watching in embarrassment.

If she runs, she'll be open to the kind of scrutiny and analysis that she has avoided up to now. I kinda feel sorry for her, she'll be discredited and rubbished as soon as she puts a policy position together. A lot of conspiracy theorists tend to be vulnerable people.

Sad Professor

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

She is against choice in pregnancy, vaccinations and trans rights. On that basis its a definite no from me.

As president, she would have no ability to impact those things. Or any of the things she claims she wants to do for that matter..

She doesn't want to be president, she just wants to use the platform of a presidential election to attack the establishment.

Anyway, I don't think she has a chance in hell of getting the 20 nominations from TDs required to get on the ballot.

VinLieger

Much like duffy and the rest of the gombeens throwing their hats into the ring she has no clue of the actual constitutional role of the president and what she is allowed/not allowed do and say

realdanbreen

VinLieger wrote: »

Much like duffy and the rest of the gombeens throwing their hats into the ring she has no clue of the actual constitutional role of the president and what she is allowed/not allowed do and say

Are you suggesting the position should only be open to a constitutional lawyer?

VinLieger

realdanbreen wrote: »

Are you suggesting the position should only be open to a constitutional lawyer?

No im simply pointing out the people running for it have not read the job description and are making wild claims about what they will do that directly conflict with it

blackwhite

realdanbreen wrote: »

Are you suggesting the position should only be open to a constitutional lawyer?

I don’t think it’s unfair to expect a potential candidate to have actually bothered to read up and understand what the powers & duties of the role actually entail.

If they want to run for election, surely a basic requirement is to understand what they’d actually be obliged to do if elected??

Bradlin

Gemma O'Doherty would be an excellent President.

She has no political allegiances and would not be afraid to ask the hard questions or upset the Establishment.

And she's not a pygmy that deviously gave an undertaking to only remain in office for 7 years, if elected. Only a seasoned politician could be cynical enough to renege on a commitment like that, with an embarrassing explanation that "I have more work to do".

Disgusting.

VinLieger

Bradlin wrote: »

Gemma O'Doherty would be an excellent President.

She has no political allegiances and would not be afraid to ask the hard questions or upset the Establishment.

And she's not a pygmy that deviously gave an undertaking to only remain in office for 7 years, if elected. Only a seasoned politician could be cynical enough to renege on a commitment like that, with an embarrassing explanation that "I have more work to do".

Disgusting.

Okay please explain how she will get around article 13.7 of the constitution to be able to do as you describe?