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

Larbre34

blanch152 wrote: »

How much would it cost to verify 50,000 signatures?

I have absolutely no idea. I imagine a presentation of ID or online portal could be used to assist the process, but it would subject to audit and it would be in the candidate's interest to see it done properly.

Overall, the cost would be far less I imagine than crackpots holding up and wasting the time of extraordinary Council meetings

FrancieBrady

Henryhill2 wrote: »

Why is Gallagher even coming back?

He either has a very high opinion of himself or he's just raising his profile for political life

Has he ever run for any other elected office in the years he was not running for president?
He's a strange one Gallagher. Only seems to get motivated in improving society when the country's top job comes up.

richiepurgas

Henryhill2 wrote: »

Why is Gallagher even coming back?

He either has a very high opinion of himself or he's just raising his profile for political life

Never underestimate vanity.

Henryhill2

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I'd love Gallagher to come out swinging. It would be most amusing. His shot at more PR would likely bite him in the aras. He's already a bit of a joke and a sore loser.

Why is Gallagher even coming back?

He either has a very high opinion of himself or he's just raising his profile for political life

blanch152

Larbre34 wrote: »

I've said it a few times on here and ill be writing to a lot of folk about it, everyone seeking to stand should be required to get 50,000 verifiable signatures from citizens of voting age before they go forward to the Councils or ask the Oireachtas to back them. If a person cant get 1% of the population to back them on their record and on whatever it is they're selling, they shouldnt be wasting the time of the above institutions.

So, on emos point above, everyone seeking to go forward should NOT automatically get on the ballot, I think the last 2 months have proven that absolutely.

How much would it cost to verify 50,000 signatures?

Larbre34

blanch152 wrote: »

We have a democratically chosen system for electing Presidents, that gives a wide degree of latitude to ensure that there is some filtering of candidates and some different ways of being nominated.

The filtering is done by people we have democratically elected to positions of responsibility.

There isn't any better cost-effective way of doing it.

I've said it a few times on here and ill be writing to a lot of folk about it, everyone seeking to stand should be required to get 50,000 verifiable signatures from citizens of voting age before they go forward to the Councils or ask the Oireachtas to back them. If a person cant get 1% of the population to back them on their record and on whatever it is they're selling, they shouldnt be wasting the time of the above institutions.

So, on emos point above, everyone seeking to go forward should NOT automatically get on the ballot, I think the last 2 months have proven that absolutely.

James Brown

Henryhill2 wrote: »

What happening with these debates?

Is MDH going to stay off the earwaves as much as possible ?

Is Gallagher going to try and muddy the waters,make it a dogfight?

I'd love Gallagher to come out swinging. It would be most amusing. His shot at more PR would likely bite him in the aras. He's already a bit of a joke and a sore loser.

Henryhill2

What happening with these debates?

Is MDH going to stay off the earwaves as much as possible ?

Is Gallagher going to try and muddy the waters,make it a dogfight?

Henryhill2

The Nal wrote: »

She knew she never had a chance. She used the system to boost her journalism career. Self imposed fake news.

Shame on her

James Brown

I see Michael D. submitted his papers for running. And him after saying he wouldn't. I'm surprised nobody's brought that up

I'm delighted he didn't decide to leave them to it.

The Nal

She knew she never had a chance. She used the system to boost her journalism career. Self imposed fake news.

emo72

blanch152 wrote: »

The filtering is done by people we have democratically elected to positions of responsibility.

Yeah. And it's really ideal if you are a supporter of an established political party!

emo72

L1011 wrote: »

. She isn't suitable for the role

*Adopts political voice* "I don't accept that!" Haha. Whom is deciding who is suitable? Whoever gets the vote is suitable. This is crazy lads ruling people out because of some preconceived ideas of how a president should act? No that's not right.

Anyway my point is not that I think she should president. It's she should be allowed to go forward! Anyone who wants to put themselves forward deserves the chance. Not a couple of vetted candidates from the Oireachtas and the council's. Anyway. I've said me piece. Go on with your bad selves!

blanch152

emo72 wrote: »

Why not? Why is it only FF FG lab SF and councils get to vet who we can vote for? There's not one candidate that suits me? I really don't think it's fair. That's my 2 cents worth. I'm just putting this here for balance. Everyone on here is putting the boot in to her. I don't think it's fair.

We have a democratically chosen system for electing Presidents, that gives a wide degree of latitude to ensure that there is some filtering of candidates and some different ways of being nominated.

The filtering is done by people we have democratically elected to positions of responsibility.

There isn't any better cost-effective way of doing it.

Itssoeasy

emo72 wrote: »

blanch152 wrote: »

How did councils go out of their way to block her?

As far as I can see, they gave her a hearing and decided she wasn't worth a nomination. Should anyone who seeks a nomination get one? What about Sharkey?

Why not? Why is it only FF FG lab SF and councils get to vet who we can vote for? There's not one candidate that suits me? I really don't think it's fair. That's my 2 cents worth. I'm just putting this here for balance. Everyone on here is putting the boot in to her.I don't think it's fair.

With respect I think that's incorrect. We are citizens of the country. We are allowed to have a certain level of candidate running for the highest office in the land.

I've seen nothing whatsoever to suggest to me that Gemma O' Doherty has any qualities/the temperament to be president of Ireland. She doesn't seem to understand the powers of the office she wishes to hold and she is also peddling in trumpian like claims for which she has rightly been called out on.

L1011

emo72 wrote: »

Why not? Why is it only FF FG lab SF and councils get to vet who we can vote for? There's not one candidate that suits me? I really don't think it's fair. That's my 2 cents worth. I'm just putting this here for balance. Everyone on here is putting the boot in to her. I don't think it's fair.

There are more than enough Independent Oireachtas members to nominate her. She isn't suitable for the role

emo72

blanch152 wrote: »

How did councils go out of their way to block her?

As far as I can see, they gave her a hearing and decided she wasn't worth a nomination. Should anyone who seeks a nomination get one? What about Sharkey?

Why not? Why is it only FF FG lab SF and councils get to vet who we can vote for? There's not one candidate that suits me? I really don't think it's fair. That's my 2 cents worth. I'm just putting this here for balance. Everyone on here is putting the boot in to her. I don't think it's fair.

blanch152

emo72 wrote: »

im disappointed gemma didnt get the nod. i would have voted for her. lots of posters saying shes unhinged or paranoid. i dont get it? i mean id be paranoid if i was sacked from my job because i knocked on a commisioners door. she should of got on the ballot paper. if no one voted for her then thats it, we know then she has no support. as it stands councils went out of their way to block her. we'll never know.

How did councils go out of their way to block her?

As far as I can see, they gave her a hearing and decided she wasn't worth a nomination. Should anyone who seeks a nomination get one? What about Sharkey?

emo72

im disappointed gemma didnt get the nod. i would have voted for her. lots of posters saying shes unhinged or paranoid. i dont get it? i mean id be paranoid if i was sacked from my job because i knocked on a commisioners door. she should of got on the ballot paper. if no one voted for her then thats it, we know then she has no support. as it stands councils went out of their way to block her. we'll never know.

Hurrache

pixelburp wrote: »

It's there; no avalanche, but there's definitely folks who have conflated her anti-corruption credentials in journalism with her spectacular failure to get a nomination, creating some myth of The Man making sure she doesn't have a platform - ignoring or just ignorant of her other, more ... controversial qualities.

That support has always been there though, I don't see it was a groundswell.

For Forks Sake

richiepurgas wrote: »

More a nut than a character. On council by fluke, got a miserable vote last time out but co-opted on death of another independent. Wouldn't have him running a lemonade stall.

I was being as polite as possible, some of these characters are quite prickly about their Good Name.

He was co-opted on after Claire Cullinanes death wasn't he?

pixelburp

richiepurgas wrote: »

That "groundswell" appears to have passed me by.
She comes across as just a bit too eccentric for any kind of public office.

It's there; no avalanche, but there's definitely folks who have conflated her anti-corruption credentials in journalism with her spectacular failure to get a nomination, creating some myth of The Man making sure she doesn't have a platform - ignoring or just ignorant of her other, more ... controversial qualities.

Rhineshark

The Nal wrote: »

Theres no groundswell. Its a handful of people with fake twitter accounts.

And Jim Corr.

No, there is some low-level support, I think based on her exposing-corruption journalist front.

I don't know how strong it really is, mind, but I've seen the odd account on social media that I happen to know is a real person supporting her.

richiepurgas

For Forks Sake wrote: »

Absolutely no surprise at who proposed her

https://twitter.com/newsworthy_ie/status/1044189813430136832?s=19

He's a 'character' of note down there

https://www.eveningecho.ie/corknews/Councillor-O-Cadhla-charged-with-criminal-damage-to-street-signs-b49b83dd-de14-4399-9d1a-1a70e3315d34-ds

https://amp.irishexaminer.com/ireland/euro10k-litter-fines-for-anti-water-fee-groups-331911.html#click=https://t.co/LMQxLM1h7h

More a nut than a character. On council by fluke, got a miserable vote last time out but co-opted on death of another independent. Wouldn't have him running a lemonade stall.

Itssoeasy

I just did a search on Twitter of gemma o Doherty and I found a clip from a day ago where she is trying to say that Martin mcguiness would be happy for Sinn Fein to give her their surplus votes.

I mean I'm sorry but where is the director saying "cut" because this can't be right. I'm hoping she gets the help she needs because if she believes the stuff she says then she needs it. If she's just saying it get attention then she needs help also.

The Nal

richiepurgas wrote: »

That "groundswell" appears to have passed me by.
She comes across as just a bit too eccentric for any kind of public office.

Theres no groundswell. Its a handful of people with fake twitter accounts.

And Jim Corr.

For Forks Sake

Water John wrote: »

Like to know, the famous five, who were willing to give her the nod in Cork County. Handy to know who not to vote for come the next local elections.

Absolutely no surprise at who proposed her

https://twitter.com/newsworthy_ie/status/1044189813430136832?s=19

He's a 'character' of note down there

https://www.eveningecho.ie/corknews/Councillor-O-Cadhla-charged-with-criminal-damage-to-street-signs-b49b83dd-de14-4399-9d1a-1a70e3315d34-ds

https://amp.irishexaminer.com/ireland/euro10k-litter-fines-for-anti-water-fee-groups-331911.html#click=https://t.co/LMQxLM1h7h

richiepurgas

pixelburp wrote: »

There's a weird groundswell of support for her in and among the doldrums of news outlet comments sections, tapping into the whole 'anti establishment', anyone-but-a-politician demographic - reality be damned. I doubt she will truly disappear from the conversation.

That "groundswell" appears to have passed me by.
She comes across as just a bit too eccentric for any kind of public office.

Water John

Like to know, the famous five, who were willing to give her the nod in Cork County. Handy to know who not to vote for come the next local elections.

For Forks Sake

Penn wrote: »

Can't she still be on the ballot if she gets some Senators to support her, or is she just done now?

Indy senators and TDs couldn't agree to nominate anyone last week (surprise :rolleyes: )