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

James Brown

AGC wrote: »

The office of the president have said how it was used, this figure has been in place since 98 and the allowance for 80 odd years

You would think Higgins was the first ever to hold the office and chancers from the Dragon's Den were going to be top selfless diplomats

If Gallagher or Casey won there'd be a lot of Presidential appearances at numerous board meetings with nods for career moves after the post IMO.

batgoat

blanch152 wrote: »

You have given us a fine example of fake news there. Casey's comments on the intruder were quite bizarre but he didn't say the intruder was made up. What he said was

"Ah, you know, I think you go seven years without an intruder and then suddenly the week before the election kicks off you get an intruder, you know?

"The coincidence of the timing is difficult to explain, I find the timing rather amusing, only weeks away from the election," Mr Casey said.

"It wouldn't surprise me if it was a PR stunt, I believe the woman was not arrested and was allowed to leave without being questioned.""

Nowhere in that does he say the intruder was made up. He does suggest it was a strange coincidence and that it wouldn't surprise him if it was a PR stunt. I think he was wrong and his comments are strange, but it is a clear example of fake news to suggest that he was "inferring the Aras intruder was made up".

Erm the implication is pretty clear...

Hurrache

blanch152 wrote: »

From the President's Office, nothing, zilch. Now some might say why complain about this now? Well, the changes in the Taoiseach's Office have only come in the last few years as it dawned on them that accountability was needed and people could not have unvouched expenses. It was very different in Haughey's time.

Do you know why there's nothing? Because they're unvouched.

And it's been pointed out to you by numerous people, it's not going to change when another president comes in, nor is it the presidents problem. You're trying to throw anything at Higgins and hoping it sticks.

blanch152

Hurrache wrote: »

Do you know why there's nothing? Because they're unvouched.

And it's been pointed out to you by numerous people, it's not going to change when another president comes in, nor is it the presidents problem. You're trying to throw anything at Higgins and hoping it sticks.

This is a circular argument, there is nothing to see because they are unvouched, so what are you looking for.

The point is, they shouldn't be unvouched.

Someone else said it was spent on entertaining 20,000 guests. Well some years he only had 10,000. Did they all get a second Ferrero Rocher?

jm08

blanch152 wrote: »

This is a circular argument, there is nothing to see because they are unvouched, so what are you looking for.

The point is, they shouldn't be unvouched.

Someone else said it was spent on entertaining 20,000 guests. Well some years he only had 10,000. Did they all get a second Ferrero Rocher?

Well then, its up to the Oireachtas to decide if they should be vouched, not the President.

From what Michael D. said on 5-7 Live, any funds not used are returned.

Hurrache

blanch152 wrote: »

This is a circular argument, there is nothing to see because they are unvouched, so what are you looking for.

The point is, they shouldn't be unvouched.

Someone else said it was spent on entertaining 20,000 guests. Well some years he only had 10,000. Did they all get a second Ferrero Rocher?

Wait, you're the one making a big issue out of it and looking for something. Ask yourself the question as to what you're looking for.

blackwhite

blanch152 wrote: »

This is a circular argument, there is nothing to see because they are unvouched, so what are you looking for.

The point is, they shouldn't be unvouched.

Someone else said it was spent on entertaining 20,000 guests. Well some years he only had 10,000. Did they all get a second Ferrero Rocher?

I’m sure you’ll explain for us why it is MDH’s fault that this fund is set up to be unvouched?
If it’s such an important issue then it’s something for either the Govt to change, or for an opposition party to raise a private members bill to change. MDH is powerless to do anything about it

In the absence of the Dail changing the rules for this account - how exactly do you expect any Aras-hosted events be funded if this fund wasn’t available?

AGC

blanch152 wrote: »

This is a circular argument, there is nothing to see because they are unvouched, so what are you looking for.

The point is, they shouldn't be unvouched.

Someone else said it was spent on entertaining 20,000 guests. Well some years he only had 10,000. Did they all get a second Ferrero Rocher?

It is not a circular argument, people are giving you facts and it is you trying to attach something to the current President that has been in place for 80 years. The media tried it yesterday and quite quickly had to change their approach.

As a public servant myself I fully agree any public funds should be subject to audit, audit committees, FOI, PAC whatever you want.

From the President's Office, nothing, zilch. Now some might say why complain about this now? Well, the changes in the Taoiseach's Office have only come in the last few years as it dawned on them that accountability was needed and people could not have unvouched expenses. It was very different in Haughey's time.

This is not true. The President.ie website outlines spending at the Áras and IMO looks quite well run if you take the Salary costs of the civil servants and the centenarians bounty.

hotmail.com

Gallagher sounded fierce nervous on the radio with Mary Wilson earlier. Perhaps he has sight of some polling!

Henryhill2

hotmail.com wrote: »

Gallagher sounded fierce nervous on the radio with Mary Wilson earlier. Perhaps he has sight of some polling!

What was he saying?

Did she quiz him about the envelope?

FrancieBrady

hotmail.com wrote: »

Gallagher sounded fierce nervous on the radio with Mary Wilson earlier. Perhaps he has sight of some polling!

Both he and Duffy came across as totally insincere and cringeworthy. All talk about the 'youth' of the country in that horrible patronising way of people who don't mean a word of what they say. Duffy in particular was trying to hit all the hip bullet points.
Gallagher got a bit strained trying to explain why he hasn't run for any office other than president and what he had been doing for 7 years.
Didn't hear any of the other candidates.

Hurrache

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Gallagher got a bit strained trying to explain why he hasn't run for any office other than president and what he had been doing for 7 years..

What was his explanation?

FrancieBrady

Hurrache wrote: »

What was his explanation?

He said he had been helping over a 100 companies through the crash and that he and Fergal Quinn had instigated some law reform but I am not sure what exactly that was.

Henryhill2

Gallagher is all smoke and mirrors

Wasn't he making a packet helping gaa clubs get grants or something

Did he ever explain why he was the go-to man for this premium service

Beechwoodspark

Really don’t like how Gallagher is including his young children in his campaign photos etc.

James Brown

I'd imagine they'll cancel each other out or in the least take enough away from each other. They can't all run successfully as the only gay businessman in the village.
Also the President should be far away from business unless her or she is opening something large.

Beechwoodspark

hotmail.com wrote: »

Gallagher sounded fierce nervous on the radio with Mary Wilson earlier. Perhaps he has sight of some polling!

Just listened to it. Sounded very nervous and also melodramatic when being asked about what he he has been doing in the last 7 years.

It sounds like he’s learned off lines from his campaign literature. Sounded a bit disingenuous

CeilingFly

hotmail.com wrote: »

Gallagher sounded fierce nervous on the radio with Mary Wilson earlier. Perhaps he has sight of some polling!

Possibly, Higgins has gone from 1/12 in to 1/5 in the betting today.

Gallagher has gone from 10/1 to 5/1

Sf have gone from 12/1 to 33/1

Henryhill2

Are the dragons spending much?

Sure it doesn't cost much to appear on TV and radio

There's one thing they're not and that's mugs

VonZan

AGC wrote: »

It is not a circular argument, people are giving you facts and it is you trying to attach something to the current President that has been in place for 80 years. The media tried it yesterday and quite quickly had to change their approach.

As a public servant myself I fully agree any public funds should be subject to audit, audit committees, FOI, PAC whatever you want.

This is not true. The President.ie website outlines spending at the Áras and IMO looks quite well run if you take the Salary costs of the civil servants and the centenarians bounty.

Public bodies waste a horrific amount of money audited or not. The C&AG are a joke and nothing more than firefighters considering the levels of wastage at various levels of the public sector. Also, procurement testing is another myth as there is always an excuse as to why it had to be first class flights and an executive room in a 4 or 5* hotel. When findings are made little is done. The fact that he can spend €317,000 unaudited is nothing short of a joke but completely unsurprising in this country.

Michael D is another walking embarrassment of a champagne socialist. He'll win a landslide and then Irish people wonder why there are major political problems in this country.

How politicians are perceived is more important than their actions. Its why Varadkar and Martin can speak out of both sides of their mouth and get away with it e.g. pretending to care about housing yet blocking housing development in their own constituencies. You get what you deserve and we're certainly getting what we deserve. This country is heading for a major pension crisis in the public sector and nobody cares.

Hurrache

VonZan wrote: »

This country is heading for a major pension crisis in the public sector and nobody cares.

You'll find that those who either fund their own retirement, or can't afford to, won't care too much how some of those in the public service may have to dig a bit deeper into their own pockets.

Odyssey 2005

If Higgins had been honourable and stuck to his word and not contested this farce we may have gotten some decent candidates. He held on and held on hedging his bets,thus discouraging anyone from throwing their hat in.

FrancieBrady

Odyssey 2005 wrote: »

If Higgins had been honourable and stuck to his word and not contested this farce we may have gotten some decent candidates. He held on and held on hedging his bets,thus discouraging anyone from throwing their hat in.

Like who?

Hurrache

Odyssey 2005 wrote: »

If Higgins had been honourable and stuck to his word and not contested this farce we may have gotten some decent candidates. He held on and held on hedging his bets,thus discouraging anyone from throwing their hat in.

Couldn't have been that decent

Rhineshark

Odyssey 2005 wrote: »

If Higgins had been honourable and stuck to his word and not contested this farce we may have gotten some decent candidates. He held on and held on hedging his bets,thus discouraging anyone from throwing their hat in.

Between this, the unvouched fund and the 'I totally didn't say made up just a lie' intruder, it is getting all very butter emails.

Given Gallagher, Duffy, etc would also have access to the fund as it's not up to the president anyway and given the actual likelihood of an intruder - who was not armed and wanted to speak to the President - being a false flag is miniscule (why not make it more dramatic? Why was it a quiet mention, they had a chat, no danger involved, end of story), it comes down to the heinous, unforgivable crime of running again, which is 100% the reason for Dragons Den Inc. running because *obviously*... nah. Not buying it.

realdanbreen

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Both he and Duffy came across as totally insincere and cringeworthy. All talk about the 'youth' of the country in that horrible patronising way of people who don't mean a word of what they say. Duffy in particular was trying to hit all the hip bullet points.
Gallagher got a bit strained trying to explain why he hasn't run for any office other than president and what he had been doing for 7 years.
Didn't hear any of the other candidates.

You missed Michael D, he was brilliant! Mary Wilson :eek:, quizzed him left right and centre, stopped just short of waterboarding him!-then I woke up!

batgoat

realdanbreen wrote: »

You missed Michael D, he was brilliant! Mary Wilson :eek:, quizzed him left right and centre, stopped just short of waterboarding him!-then I woke up!

You realise that Michael D has the next month to appear? You guys are really struggling to find issues with his presidency...

FrancieBrady

realdanbreen wrote: »

You missed Michael D, he was brilliant! Mary Wilson :eek:, quizzed him left right and centre, stopped just short of waterboarding him!-then I woke up!

I thought Higgins was consumate in his speech yesterday. Dealt with the issues adequately and made those questioning the allowance sound silly actually. He neatly placed the responsibilities for the allowance and the price of hotels where they lie - those who audit and book them.
He also managed to be funny and genuine.

He's as much a politician as the rest of them but he is streets ahead of them.

eastwest

Odyssey 2005 wrote: »

If Higgins had been honourable and stuck to his word and not contested this farce we may have gotten some decent candidates. He held on and held on hedging his bets,thus discouraging anyone from throwing their hat in.

That's not an issue, believe me. It was reasonable for him not to commit to one term at the time and to change his mind when he was comfortable with giving all.his time to the job.
This issue was raised early on in the campaign by a few anti-higgins people but it never got traction, and it won't. Most of them realise that now and have given up this line of argument.

Zubeneschamali

FrancieBrady wrote: »

He's as much a politician as the rest of them but he is streets ahead of them.

The Dragons are not politicians at all, they are rank amateurs at this stuff. They haven't a snowball's chance in hell unless Higgins self destructs somehow.

I will vote:

1. Higgins
2. Freeman (despite her possible ultracatholic links)
3. Ni Riada (despite her thinking SF is a good idea)
4. Casey (marketing droid)
5. Duffy (Hunting? Seriously?)
6. Gallagher (back under your rock, bagman).