Creol1 wrote: » In general, this is correct, but it is for precisely this reason that councils take their role in nominating presidential candidates very seriously. It is one of the few significant powers councils still have. Party headquarters can impose a whip on their members if they wish, but given the number of councillors and the fact that a lot of them will resist interference on this issue, the two main parties will be reluctant to do so when neither of them is contesting the presidential election and the evidence so far is that the HQs of FF and FG will be taking a more hands-off approach.
yrreg0850 wrote: » Councillors in fact have no power and, are controlled from their respective party HQ. Their only function is a stepping stone to a Dail seat. What is needed is a referrendum to change the system whereby the decision to have a presidential election or not is in the hands of two party leaders.
dulpit wrote: » So what's the alternative? Making it just Oireachtas selection will reduce nominees significantly, and if you allow other routes (e.g. a certain number of nominating signatures from the general public) would broaden the circus significantly.
VinLieger wrote: » Hardly stellar choices there, kinda proves the point about the councillor route making the whole thing a circus
dulpit wrote: » Would that not necessarily make it easier for somebody of the high calibre (:rolleyes:) of Gemma O'Doherty to get onto ballot, increasing the circus of the election. The council route has allowed quite a large number of candidates through over the past 2 elections: Dana (twice) Derek Nally Mary Davis Sean Gallagher David Norris It's a pain, but does seem to allow candidates an element of vetting before getting onto the ballot. From what I've heard a lot of the FF/FG councillors are going to abstain rather than vote against motions in the councils when nominations come up, so there should be a few nominated this time around too.
imme wrote: » Carnival, not circus is the only appropriate word to describe what the presidential race can degenerate to. I think the county council route is past its sell by date if it ever had a value. It gives county and city councilors an inflated and false opinion of their own abilities and power. Carnival is all it is.
gandalf wrote: » That's not very presidential of her.
batgoat wrote: » Gemma O'Doherty is now threatening legal action via dm on twitter against the woman who called her views out. Primarily her view on the hpv vaccine.https://twitter.com/fionapettit71/status/1031983527456370688
Creol1 wrote: » 1. I was addressing specific points that were made. I quoted these in my post. 2. Gemma O'D has never linked recognition of trans children to paedophilia. A misleading screengrab has been doing the rounds giving this impression. This screengrab doesn't show the post she was actually replying to. It is clear from the actual post that no such connection was ever made.
Creol1 wrote: » On the contrary, it is a well-established fact that the majority of children who see themselves as trans actually come to accept their birth sex in adulthood: http://www.sexologytoday.org/2016/01/do-trans-kids-stay-trans-when-they-grow_99.html. But the legislation does not make provision for medical professionals to have a role in deciding this. It is the parents and, if the parents object, the courts, who decide. Indeed, the trans movement is arguing that this should not be seen as a medical or psychiatric issue.
Recommendations The Chair submitted the Group’s report to the Minister for Employment Affairs and Social Protection on 15 June 2018. The key recommendations of the report are that, in principle; A: a system of gender recognition be introduced for children subject to the following key principles: parental consent required the process to be administrative, third party support for the child and family involved a straightforward revocation process to be included
blackwhite wrote: » How does any of that relate to (or excuse!) Gemma O’Doherty trying to link recognition of trans children to paedophilia??
Joeytheparrot wrote: » This is completely your opinion that children are not mature physically, emotionally or psychologically to decide how they identify. It is an opinion that has no evidence base and is not backed up by major medical professional associations.
Joeytheparrot wrote: » There may be regret with lots of things. Of course there can but obviously with guidance and support from qualified medical professionals you can try to ensure that children making these decisions do not do so on a whim.
ligerdub wrote: » I never claimed sexuality and gender identity to be dependent of each other, the poster I was responding to made that link not me. No, what I am suggesting is that children who identify as trans should have no legal standing to do so, as they have no legal standing to do plenty of other things. You see the law protects children in that way, as they should do here. They have not matured physically, emotionally or psychologically to be considered reliable enough to make such an agreement or decision. Can you not see the potential damage to the CHILD in allowing them in pursuing a potentially dangerous course of action they subsequently regret and could not have been expected to make a mature decision on? All the while that persons parents or guardian (clue is in the title), who should be considered wiser and responsible, step aside and do nothing. It's the same way we shouldn't be obliged to recognise their potential imaginary friends when we are conducting the census. If you have a problem with that then you should go out and protest everything else they legally aren't considered mature enough to do,decide upon or be legally considered an adult in. You shouldn't of course, because that would be incredibly irresponsible. To counter your claim in the other post which said that it was transphobic because Gemma likened the policy to paedophilia, well that's also rubbish. She was using that claim as it was potentially abuse to a child, which while not exactly polished or advisable language, is a potentially fair accusation if you believe that there are valid risks to the child from a laissez-faire policy regarding children. Anyway, I'll leave it there because it's no longer on-topic.
Sierra Oscar wrote: Some people are easily misled. The sad thing is they believe they are somehow more enlightened than everyone else after viewing and listening to conspiracy theory nonsense. We live in an age where fake news and disinformation is passed off as real journalism.
VinLieger wrote: » So gemma has admitted her goal is to initiate a constitutional crisishttps://twitter.com/oconnellhugh/status/1031853176432087040
blackwhite wrote: » The appearance is that they're not so much interested in winning the Presidential election - just in taking advantage of an opportunity to promote the party at a time when the other parties aren't taking part. In the 8th Referendum campaign they were the only large party to have their party leader plastered across their campaign posters - which gave more than a slight suggestion that promoting the party for a future GE was their actual focus. It's not much of a leap to think that the same might be going on this time around (and plenty of commentators suggested as much at the time SF announced they'd contest the election). The relative silence since about who the actual candidate will be doesn't do anything to dispel the theory
blanch152 wrote: » It is not misinformation, it is the truth. The SF candidate does not support vaccination
blanch152 wrote: » The use of the referendum campaign for self-promotion was acceptable in your eyes?
makeorbrake wrote: » Now this isn't lazy - it's just nasty misinformation. Showing your true colours. There is no truth to the 'anti-vax assertion. It's called not simply accepting the HSE - but challenging them...and their record is far from a good one.
