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

Zubeneschamali

B0jangles wrote: »

Isn't Sean Gallagher's most reliably profit-making skill his ability to qualify for government grants?

He's pretty good at tax loopholes too.

James Brown

Sounds like Gallagher would be a real problem for those concerned with the costs attributed to the office of President.

Colonel Claptrap

Just noticed Ni Riada's posters show no mention of Sinn Fein.

I wonder what that's about.

Zubeneschamali

Colonel Claptrap wrote: »

Just noticed Ni Riada's posters show no mention of Sinn Fein.

I wonder what that's about.

McGuinness did that last time and got what, 14%? Ni Riada isn't running to win, she is running to take the electorates temperature on SF. So to eliminate a variable, she should run with posters like McGuinnesses.

eastwest

humberklog wrote: »

I think Michael D. running has skewed the faces on the running list. It'd be a very different line up if he'd been bowing down.

Packie Bonner for 2025.

Certainly his being in the race appears to have discouraged a few quality candidates from entering the fray. Had he not run, we might have seen a better class of candidate, people like Fergus finlay or other quality candidates. As it is, we have nothing more than a circus.

James Brown

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

McGuinness did that last time and got what, 14%? Ni Riada isn't running to win, she is running to take the electorates temperature on SF. So to eliminate a variable, she should run with posters like McGuinnesses.

Higgins doesn't run as Labour either.
Ni Rada said she's proud to be a member of SF but believes the office shouldn't be party affiliated. Unlikely that would be the case if she were to win, although it might raise the level of debate regarding a united Ireland, which is always good.

Nitrogan

Matt Barrett wrote: »

although it might raise the level of debate regarding a united Ireland, which is always good.

A Sinn Fein candidate is the worst possible choice of President if there's likely to be a United Ireland poll within their tenure.

L1011

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Higgins doesn't run as Labour either.
Ni Rada said she's proud to be a member of SF but believes the office shouldn't be party affiliated. Unlikely that would be the case if she were to win, although it might raise the level of debate regarding a united Ireland, which is always good.

Higgins was not nominated by Labour this time; Ni Riada was.

It makes it a rather expensive waste of time for them if they don't even get to shove up Mary Lou posters alongside really. She's not going to win, she may not even get her expenses.

James Brown

L1011 wrote: »

Higgins was not nominated by Labour this time; Ni Riada was.

It makes it a rather expensive waste of time for them if they don't even get to shove up Mary Lou posters alongside really. She's not going to win, she may not even get her expenses.

I agree. Just stating, Michael D. is likely still paying his membership dues to Labour. And Gallagher, if he were being honest about it...*cough* FF.

Capt'n Midnight

Some numbers about the expenses and stuff

expenditure in 2016 was €3.6m, of which €1.15m is spent on gratuities to centenarians.
So over a seven year term that's €17.15m not counting payments to the OAP's

And if there were any savings what would we do with them ?

State paid €15.8m in rent for vacant Dept of Health building

James Brown

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Some numbers about the expenses and stuff

expenditure in 2016 was €3.6m, of which €1.15m is spent on gratuities to centenarians.
So over a seven year term that's €17.15m not counting payments to the OAP's

And if there were any savings what would we do with them ?

State paid €15.8m in rent for vacant Dept of Health building

The main take away is all that money isn't going into a President's pocket. If there were no such office, the debate would be should people hitting a hundred get a nod? And should events be put on that don't relate directly to the economy, (meeting abuse victims, athletes, people who win awards and so on)?

As for the building lying idle, costing millions, sure PBP/SF would have left a bigger more expensive building idle or something...

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Higgins doesn't run as Labour either.
Ni Rada said she's proud to be a member of SF but believes the office shouldn't be party affiliated. Unlikely that would be the case if she were to win, although it might raise the level of debate regarding a united Ireland, which is always good.

A bit strange that Gallagher gets criticised for supposed FF connections and Duffy gets criticised for supposed FG connections, but Higgins gets a free pass for not running as Labour and Ni Riadha gets a free pass for not putting SF on her posters.

There wouldn't be one rule for SF and one rule for everyone else, by chance?

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

A bit strange that Gallagher gets criticised for supposed FF connections and Duffy gets criticised for supposed FG connections, but Higgins gets a free pass for not running as Labour and Ni Riadha gets a free pass for not putting SF on her posters.

There wouldn't be one rule for SF and one rule for everyone else, by chance?

Because she is open and transparent about it maybe?

marieholmfan

blanch152 wrote: »

A bit strange that Gallagher gets criticised for supposed FF connections

They aren't supposed. They are real. He is literally an FF brown envelope distributor. The issue is less his very real lifelong Fianna Fail connections and the fact that he is part of that parasitical network that destroyed the country than his brass necked dishonesty. The man is a liar. He lied about being in FF.

Gavan Duffy is completely different. He is FG but not a party political activist and the attempt to link him to Gallagher is frankly defamatory.

There is no evidence for example that Gavan Duffy drove around collecting cheques for the FG equivalent of Brian Cowen (though the typical blueshirt would need a lobotomy before he became the equivalent of Brian Cowen).

CeilingFly

Michael d is saying we should not treat immigrants the way we treat travellers.

But we don't.

Because immigrants don't prey on the elderly, immigrants don't scam anyone and everyone they meet, immigrants don't burgle houses left right and centre, immigrants actually pay for goods they select in shops, immigrants WANT to work and contribute to society.

So Mr Higgins, there's no Chance in hell of immigrants being treated like a criminally minded group of scanners.

FrancieBrady

CeilingFly wrote: »

Michael d is saying we should not treat immigrants the way we treat travellers.

But we don't.

Because immigrants don't prey on the elderly, immigrants don't scam anyone and everyone they meet, immigrants don't burgle houses left right and centre, immigrants actually pay for goods they select in shops, immigrants WANT to work and contribute to society.

So Mr Higgins, there's no Chance in hell of immigrants being treated like a criminally minded group of scanners.

If all travelers behaved like you have generalised them the country would be unlivable.

AH might be a better spot to vent your spleen on this.

CeilingFly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If all travelers behaved like you have generalised them the country would be unlivable.

AH might be a better spot to vent your spleen on this.

Yesterday I caught the 16th shoplifter in my business this year.

Each and every one of them was a Traveller.

That's fact - not generalisation.

A minority of travellers are law abiding, but the majority are not. And the facts are there as absolute proof.

FrancieBrady

CeilingFly wrote: »

Yesterday I caught the 16th shoplifter in my business this year.

Each and every one of them was a Traveller.

That's fact - not generalisation.

A minority of travellers are law abiding, but the majority are not. And the facts are there as absolute proof.

And some immigrants rob and don't obey the law as do citizens.

Stop the generalisations and take on board the idea that if you call something a dog, often enough it will eventually bite you.

CeilingFly

FrancieBrady wrote: »

And some immigrants rob and don't obey the law as do citizens.

Stop the generalisations and take on board the idea that if you call something a dog, often enough it will eventually bite you.

I'm in retail over 30 years, I assure you its not a generalisation. The majority of travellers tend to avoid going via the till when procuring goods.

Cso figures - 34% of male Travellers will spend time in prison at some stage of their lives.

Nitrogan

FrancieBrady wrote: »

And some immigrants rob and don't obey the law as do citizens.

Stop the generalisations and take on board the idea that if you call something a dog, often enough it will eventually bite you.

Would it bite me?

If so what should I do?

FrancieBrady

CeilingFly wrote: »

I'm in retail over 30 years, I assure you its not a generalisation. The majority of travellers tend to avoid going via the till when procuring goods.

Cso figures - 34% of male Travellers will spend time in prison at some stage of their lives.

I'm dealing with them for almost the same amount of time in a service business and they always pay upfront. I am chasing money from a hell of a lot more 'respectable' citizens and have had 4 cases in small claims and a filing cabinet of debts that have never been paid by settled people.

Not all travellers are on the rob like not all immigrants are or settled Irish.
No doubt some do and a greater proportion of travellers seem to do, but you insist on saying they ALL do. They don't.

ancapailldorcha

Enough of the generalizations please.

marieholmfan

CeilingFly wrote: »

Yesterday I caught the 16th shoplifter in my business this year.

The plural of anecdote isn't data.

batgoat

blanch152 wrote: »

A bit strange that Gallagher gets criticised for supposed FF connections and Duffy gets criticised for supposed FG connections, but Higgins gets a free pass for not running as Labour and Ni Riadha gets a free pass for not putting SF on her posters.

There wouldn't be one rule for SF and one rule for everyone else, by chance?

Eh both Higgins and NiRiada are prominent members in their respective parties, it's pretty transparent. Not so much for Gallagher.

Larbre34

marieholmfan wrote: »

The plural of anecdote isn't data.

Brilliant.

Larbre34

batgoat wrote: »

Eh both Higgins and NiRiada are prominent members in their respective parties, it's pretty transparent. Not so much for Gallagher.

Exactly. Elected party representatives versus bag men.

Rhineshark

I keep seeing this argument and don't get it.

Michael D. Higgins is running again.

The rest of the field is pretty poor.

Therefore, it is Higgins fault that the rest of the field is so poor because as a strong candidate he has single-handedly discouraged anyone else from running.

Therefore, it is the fault of a strong candidate that other strong candidates will not run, and no imputation of the strength of character of the mythical good candidates that don't have the will to run against a strong candidate.

So we should not allow strong candidates to run in in case they put someone else off.

Vote Dustin the Turkey?

Rhineshark

blackwhite wrote: »

You'd have to feel that if Higgins had ruled himself out then a few credible candidates would have emerged to try to win nominations from the political parties; and SF would have actually put forward a candidate with a chance as well.

Example of this assumption. There's no real logic as for why (or what it says about the strength of the non-existant candidate that they don't have the guts to run against a tiny elderly man, even as groundwork for the next election), it is just a feeling that "you have to feel". Why?

humberklog wrote: »

I think Michael D. running has skewed the faces on the running list. It'd be a very different line up if he'd been bowing down.

Packie Bonner for 2025.

eastwest wrote: »

Certainly his being in the race appears to have discouraged a few quality candidates from entering the fray. Had he not run, we might have seen a better class of candidate, people like Fergus finlay or other quality candidates. As it is, we have nothing more than a circus.

Which candidates? Why is it not equally likely that the clown show put off credible candidates? Or that there simply weren't a great deal of people interested in the position?

I am intrigued by the bizarre spectacle of casually blaming the sanest candidate for the nuttiness of the rest. Talk about a hell of a standard to get someone to live up to! He's basically now responsible for the bat****tery or unbotheredness of literally anyone else.

Odd.

Edit: those three posts were just scooped up from the last two pages as examples of an argument that is almost like background noise at this point and seems to keep passing as inarguable folk wisdom without being challenged.

Nitrogan

Rhineshark wrote: »

Vote Dustin the Turkey?

As long he's not a Sinn Fein candidate that would be grand.

Could we give Mary McAleese another go at it?

She'd be worth changing the rules for.

Capt'n Midnight

Nitrogan wrote: »

Could we give Mary McAleese another go at it?

She'd be worth changing the rules for.

NO.

Not because of the person.

Because the rules are there for a reason.

Relax the rules for one and you have to relax it for all. How may billions did the cyclical bank crashes cost ? Where most of the damage could be attributed to politicians believing the banker "relax the rules , this time it's different".