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

Itssoeasy

Gemma O'Doherty seems to be fighting with everyone who doesn't agree fully with what she is saying.

blackwhite

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Gemma O'Doherty seems to be fighting with everyone who doesn't agree fully with what she is saying.

And with anyone who reports what she actually says as well :pac:

Beechwoodspark

Irish independent reporting that 3 dragons den investors are in the running for President

Gavin Duffy
Sean Gallagher
And peter Casey

Peter Casey could be the dark horse in this. Although in fairness GD seems to be making good progress. SG is supposedly entering the race this morning.

VinLieger

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Gemma O'Doherty seems to be fighting with everyone who doesn't agree fully with what she is saying.

Incredibly trumpesque in the way she has fooled so many to jump on board her "anti-corruption" bandwagon ie "drain the swamp" and gotten all of them to ignore her other pretty right wing and conspiracy laden views.

VinLieger

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Irish independent reporting that 3 dragons den investors are in the running for President

Gavin Duffy
Sean Gallagher
And peter Casey

Peter Casey could be the dark horse in this. Although in fairness GD seems to be making good progress. SG is supposedly entering the race this morning.

Gemma wont survive the debates if she keeps up her current attitude of attack and sue everyone who disagrees with her or simply quotes back what she has said

Beechwoodspark

VinLieger wrote: »

Gemma wont survive the debates if she keeps up her current attitude of attack and sue everyone who disagrees with her or simply quotes back what she has said

No I meant Gavin Duffy (GD) in my above post

VinLieger

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

No I meant Gavin Duffy (GD) in my above post

He may have made a bit of a slip up last night with the kildare logo thing

Hurrache

VinLieger wrote: »

He may have made a bit of a slip up last night with the kildare logo thing

That, and being an enthusiastic fan of blood sports.

evolving_doors

I reckon these randomers are throwing their hat in the ring in the chance that some scandal or other is revealed about Michael D.

evolving_doors

VinLieger wrote: »

He may have made a bit of a slip up last night with the kildare logo thing

These days 'mis-spokens' are easily explained away to the pubic.

Beechwoodspark

What I mean by progress is he is apparently going to get the council nominations required

FrancieBrady

gandalf wrote: »

I don't see Gallagher doing as well this time. His chance was back in 2011 and fluffed it. If anything he will damage his reputation more.

What exactly is his reputation?

What has he done/achieved since his last tilt at this? Other than running a business like thousands of other people, how has this guy distinguished his 'reputation'?

pixelburp

Three Dragons Den business people seems an oddly specific target clutch of candidates. I read in the news today that Gallagher may have an announcement today about his candidature.

gandalf

Yep he has announced now.

Plus John Waters has given Gemma his support. When all the fruitcakes support one candidate you know who to avoid!

dulpit

I read the thread from Meath County Council yesterday, it seemed that of them all the only candidate who seemed to be aware of what a president can/can't do was Joan Freeman. Sure she's a conservative re. abortion/etc, but I think she's said elsewhere she'd not have a problem signing into law.

She could be the dark horse. I think she'll get a nomination anyway...

gandalf

dulpit wrote: »

I read the thread from Meath County Council yesterday, it seemed that of them all the only candidate who seemed to be aware of what a president can/can't do was Joan Freeman. Sure she's a conservative re. abortion/etc, but I think she's said elsewhere she'd not have a problem signing into law.

She could be the dark horse. I think she'll get a nomination anyway...

She can't refuse to sign anything in reality. She can refer a bill to the Supreme Court to check its constitutional. If they say it is then she has to sign.

Looking at social media a majority of people do not seem to realise this.

dulpit

gandalf wrote: »

She can't refuse to sign anything in reality. She can refer a bill to the Supreme Court to check its constitutional. If they say it is then she has to sign.

Looking at social media a majority of people do not seem to realise this.

Yep, but at least she's said she will. She recognises the power (or lack thereof) of the role. So fairplay to her I guess.

Roger_007

Given recent trends, surely the profile for a successful candidate for the presidency would be a transsexual non-white atheist with a disability.......who would dare campaign or vote against them?

Loafing Oaf

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Irish independent reporting that 3 dragons den investors are in the running for President

Gavin Duffy
Sean Gallagher
And peter Casey

Peter Casey could be the dark horse in this.

So dark that I've never heard of him. But then I don't watch the show...

dulpit wrote: »

Yep, but at least she's said she will. She recognises the power (or lack thereof) of the role. So fairplay to her I guess.

and you reckon the other candidates aren't aware of this?

gandalf

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

and you reckon the other candidates aren't aware of this?

Well judging by their utterances they may not or are counting on their audience not being aware of it.

I've seen MdH being lambasted for signing particular bills by a large number of people who don't realise he has to sign them.

Hurrache

gandalf wrote: »

Seen MdH being lambasted for signing particular bills by a large number of people who don't realise he has to sign them.

The no way we won't pay for anything crowd have also been asking would candidates sign anything related to water charges.

Beechwoodspark

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What exactly is his reputation?

What has he done/achieved since his last tilt at this? Other than running a business like thousands of other people, how has this guy distinguished his 'reputation'?

He’s been fairly anonymous since 2011

gandalf

Hurrache wrote: »

The no way we won't pay for anything crowd have also been asking would candidates sign anything related to water charges.

Unless its unconstitutional whoever is President will have to. And if they do refer it to the Supreme Court and they say its constitutional no further appeals can be made against it. A large number if the voting public do not understand the role of President in Ireland.

seamus

dulpit wrote: »

Sure she's a conservative re. abortion/etc

Is she?

I've seen this said a couple of times, but no indication that this is the case.

ancapailldorcha

Roger_007 wrote: »

Given recent trends, surely the profile for a successful candidate for the presidency would be a transsexual non-white atheist with a disability.......who would dare campaign or vote against them?

Don't post any more nonsense like this here please.

FrancieBrady

Looks like Gallagher's nomination is fairly certainly going to come from FF councillors so he will be seen as a de facto FF candidate.
Will the 'bagman' tag raise it's head again or are we over that?

blackwhite

seamus wrote: »

Is she?

I've seen this said a couple of times, but no indication that this is the case.

She has said that she voted No, but didn't campaign or make her views known prior to the Referendum.

On LGBT rights she has been co-sponsor of bills protecting the LGBT community - and would come into conflict with much of the "religious right" in Ireland.

The hardcore "liberals" (who's behaviour tends to show them as anything but liberal) on here are determined to claim she's an Iona Institute candidate because of her sister and niece being prominent Iona members - whilst ignoring that her daughter was a prominent Yes campaigner.

Her charitable works in the mental health area mean she'll have goodwill from many, but how well that will translate into supporting her ahead of MGH remains to be seen. I haven't seen enough from her to make me think she'd be an upgrade on the incumbent at any rate.

I can see her maybe getting a nomination, and if she did hitting somewhere between 5-10% of the vote.

Hurrache

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Looks like Gallagher's nomination is fairly certainly going to come from FF councillors so he will be seen as a de facto FF candidate.
Will the 'bagman' tag raise it's head again or are we over that?

I don't think there's an escape from it.

It may however provide an interesting barometer to see where FFs standing is with the electorate these days, and therefore may signal how much longer FF will want to support the government for.

gandalf

I'd put Joan Freeman at the top of the list of prospect candidates for suitability for the role. I'd expect her to get a shot but I'd agree with blackwhite in that she will get 10% maximum of the vote.

blackwhite

gandalf wrote: »

I'd put Joan Freeman at the top of the list of prospect candidates for suitability for the role. I'd expect her to get a shot but I'd agree with blackwhite in that she will get 10% maximum of the vote.

She's very much in the Adi Roche mould from the 1997 election - clearly well-intentioned, generally inoffensive, but struggles to win people over.