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

For Forks Sake

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Seanie has made a bit of a hash of his 60 sec video.

https://www.joe.ie/politics/watch-sean-gallaghers-60-second-presidential-pitch-not-getting-reaction-wanted-643478

For Forks Sake

And bad as Gallagher was, his isn't a patch on Caseys 60 seconds of rambling nonsense:

https://twitter.com/rtenews/status/1048875837779402752

expectationlost

FrancieBrady wrote: »

This is also factually wrong. Her eldest daughter had the vaccination and Ni Riada received a letter giving 24 hours notice about her 2nd daughter's vaccination when there was a lot of confusion around.

her eldest daughter didn't get the second dose https://soundcloud.com/opinionline96/the-opinion-line-2016-09-02-your-daily-podcast-of-corks-no1-talkshow 54.00 shes pretty slack about it

Hotblack Desiato

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Vaccination uptake had already fallen from a high of 87% to 50% before Ni Riada did the interview in Sept. 2016.

So why did she add to the FUD? Does being a public representative mean you can mouth off any old rubbish with no consequences? For the SF true believers, it sure looks that way.

Rhineshark

FrancieBrady wrote: »

How do I know what?

She says she was on the programme as a 'mother'. Of course she was going to mention her daughter's.

She has the right as a politician to keep her daughter's out of it, as any politician has.
That is why I and others think it is sinister to be trying to involve them against their will and their mother's.
Had she not made a clear and precise statement on the vaccine you guys might have a point.

It's not sinister, it's a loose end.

The problem with being a politician is that speaking "as a Mother" while using your name recognition as a politician means that you will get asked questions about rubbish spouted "as a mother" when acting "as a politician". If you drag your own daughters into it, gosh golly whee you'll get asked questions about them which just a tad late for vapours at people "politicizing your daughters".

Strumms

I think Michael D has been a very good president. It’s up to him if he wants to run again. However considering his advancing years I think for himself and his family it could be prudent to say.. “ok, I’ve had my time, gave it my best and did a good good job, now time to hand over to a younger incumbent. 45 years plus as it now stands as a public servant...time for himself and Sabina to sit back and enjoy life.

Edgware

Strumms wrote: »

I think Michael D has been a very good president. It’s up to him if he wants to run again. However considering his advancing years I think for himself and his family it could be prudent to say.. “ok, I’ve had my time, gave it my best and did a good good job, now time to hand over to a younger incumbent. 45 years plus as it now stands as a public servant...time for himself and Sabina to sit back and enjoy life.

Not while there is still more moolah to be got.
Hard to walk away from the trough even for a socialist

Wanderer78

Edgware wrote:

Not while there is still more moolah to be got. Hard to walk away from the trough even for a socialist

Maybe he likes the job

FrancieBrady

Rhineshark wrote: »

It's not sinister, it's a loose end.

The problem with being a politician is that speaking "as a Mother" while using your name recognition as a politician means that you will get asked questions about rubbish spouted "as a mother" when acting "as a politician". If you drag your own daughters into it, gosh golly whee you'll get asked questions about them which just a tad late for vapours at people "politicizing your daughters".

She has said what her opinion is on the vaccine, and that she thinks it should be expanded. Having never actually said anywhere that she was against it.

Now you either accept that or you don't, calling for her daughters medical history makes no difference to that.

Because if you disbelieve what she has said above getting her daughters history isn't going to change your mind.

We all know what is going on here, same every time a republican puts their head above a parapet, 'keep the dirt flying even though the dirt has long ago been swept away'.

batgoat

FrancieBrady wrote: »

She has said what her opinion is on the vaccine, and that she thinks it should be expanded. Having never actually said anywhere that she was against it.

Now you either accept that or you don't, calling for her daughters medical history makes no difference to that.

Because if you disbelieve what she has said above getting her daughters history isn't going to change your mind.

We all know what is going on here, same every time a republican puts their head above a parapet, 'keep the dirt flying even though the dirt has long ago been swept away'.

Except she's not the only politician to get called out over her view on vaccines...

FrancieBrady

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Maybe he likes the job

That is one of the strongest things that comes across when you meet him or listen to him. He loves the job and the role.
It suits his persona and breath of cultural knowledge and interests. too.

FrancieBrady

batgoat wrote: »

Except she's not the only politician to get called out over her view on vaccines...

We all know that it doesn't matter to the anti-republican crowd what she says - or her children or anyone else. They have their stick and nothing she says or even her daughters says, is going to make them put that stick down.

Loafing Oaf

Strumms wrote: »

I think Michael D has been a very good president. It’s up to him if he wants to run again. However considering his advancing years I think for himself and his family it could be prudent to say.. “ok, I’ve had my time, gave it my best and did a good good job, now time to hand over to a younger incumbent. 45 years plus as it now stands as a public servant...time for himself and Sabina to sit back and enjoy life.

Bit odd for him to pull out at this stage

marieholmfan

FrancieBrady wrote: »

We all know that it doesn't matter to the anti-republican crowd what she says - or her children or anyone else. They have their stick and nothing she says or even her daughters says, is going to make them put that stick down.

We can't have a "Sinn Fein" President. It would prevent a United Ireland. In fact knowing that it is hard to see Sinn Fein's actions as anything other than treasonous.

Zubeneschamali

FrancieBrady wrote: »

We all know that it doesn't matter to the anti-republican crowd what she says

We all knew, before SF even declared their candidate, that you would be here defending them, even though you claimed you would wait and see who it was etc. etc.

Even though you are not a shinner of any stripe, you or your SNIP. Do not list other users previous accounts please.

It is enough for you that they run as your notion of a Republican, a doctrinaire SFer. Nothing else matters.

FrancieBrady

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

We all knew, before SF even declared their candidate, that you would be here defending them, even though you claimed you would wait and see who it was etc. etc.

Even though you are not a shinner of any stripe, you Deleted.

It is enough for you that they run as your notion of a Republican, a doctrinaire SFer. Nothing else matters.

Here we go...

Hurrache

For Forks Sake wrote: »

And bad as Gallagher was, his isn't a patch on Caseys 60 seconds of rambling nonsense:

https://twitter.com/rtenews/status/1048875837779402752

WTF is that about. Hey everyone, we have phones and Skype now, lets call our friends abroad. That's basically it.

Zubeneschamali

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Here we go...

We have pointed out that any candidate voicing anti-vax sentiment would get the same criticism.

O'Doherty has been slated here for her conspiracy theories. Freeman for her funding and ultracatholic background. Gallagher for his FF links and general uselessness for the past 7 years. The other dragons for wasting everyones time.

And many people have had a go at Higgins for being too old, for running again when he said he wouldn't, for making a fortune off the taxpayer.

But alone of all the candidates, it is the SFer who is a victim of an "anti-republican" crowd for shooting her mouth off with antivaxx nonsense.

Sorry, not buying it. I'll be putting her 2nd on my ticket, but she needs to deal with the antivaxx stuff properly.

marieholmfan

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I'll be putting her 2nd on my ticket, but she needs to deal with the antivaxx stuff properly.

Ahead of Joan Freeman? Why?

Zubeneschamali

marieholmfan wrote: »

Ahead of Joan Freeman? Why?

Freeman is hiding something about her extreme catholic views, and her funding is very dodgy.

marieholmfan

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Freeman is hiding something about her extreme catholic views, and her funding is very dodgy.

You seem like a very intelligent person ; who may be a little misinformed.

She doesn't have extreme Catholic views (she is no McAleese for example) she is just a Catholic. The loan is not dodgy - though its source is - it is fully declared and absolutely compliant with SIPO rules.

To elect such a tireless campaigner for mental health (or even to give her a strong second - because Michael D will be elected) would send a great message about our commitment to improve mental health services and might even influence funding.

Of course you are smart enough to make up your own mind.

Hotblack Desiato

You don't think the prospect of having a president heavily in debt to a businessman (a very dodgy businessman, at that) is at all a cause for concern?

richiepurgas

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

You don't think the prospect of having a president heavily in debt to a businessman (a very dodgy businessman, at that) is at all a cause for concern?

In fairness, and I won't be voting for her, she was quite open about the source and conditions of the loan. Also, you'd struggle to see how a businessman could use undue influence on an Irish president. Things are different in the states.

Hurrache

Liam "Gavin" Duffy on RTE rambling about selling AIB to fordeners and how children are being preyed upon in their bedrooms via Fortnite by predators. He wants to take the Big 5 tech companies to task over this.

Edit: He now says that RTE are a fan club for Higgins. When asked to back it up, he used the fact that they made a a settlement, for which they're embarrassed by, as proof. He doubles down and asks why the settlement was secret if RTE aren't his fan club.

Loosing the rag now that RTE won't accept the fact he 'dropped the torch' on Northern Ireland.

Zubeneschamali

marieholmfan wrote: »

She doesn't have extreme Catholic views (she is no McAleese for example) she is just a Catholic.

I would have no issues if that were true, but she is definitely hiding something there.

When asked about her views on the Iona Institute, she claimed she had never heard of them until the 8th amendment campaign, despite the fact that in Feb 2017 she was on an Oireachteas subcommittee which received a submission from Iona. Oh, and her niece Maria Steen is a spokeswomen for Iona, and one of the people in the high profile RTE settlement over allegations of homophobia. It simply isn't credible that Freeman never heard of them.

Did she, founder of Pieta house, speak out when Ronan Mullen claimed mental health had "no evidence base" on live TV? Nope, because she was a No voter.

In 2015 she gave a speech claiming Knock shrine cured her teenage eczema. She was not laughing at her teenage self being silly, she said:

I placed my hands on the wall here in Knock on the shrine and I've never had eczema again," she said, to applause.

"I'm telling you that was because behind that cure was faith. It was the foundation of belief of divine intervention and it became the cornerstone of the next 40 years of my life.

And now that I look, she doesn't seem as keen on abortion legislation as some of her statements seem to suggest. She has said she would have no problem signing abortion legislation, but check this out:

Speaking to Dublin City FM radio station’s Sunday Edition, Ms Freeman added that having Faith is sometimes portrayed as if something is “radically wrong” with you, whereas research indicates that believers actually cope better with life.

The Irish psychologist and mental health activist also said she voted against the removal of the Eighth Amendment from the Constitution in May, but that this would in no way impinge on her public duties as president.

“The voice of the people has been heard and there probably will have to be amendments to legislation. That comes with every legislation. We’ll just have to wait and see what is suggested,” she said, adding that the lead up to the vote on removing the constitutional provision was “such a difficult time for all the people of Ireland”.

We know exactly what will be suggested: abortion on demand. And it wasn't "such a difficult time", Joan, it was a bloody brilliant time as we prepared to lift the pall thrown over our rights and health by SPUC and the catholic majority back in 1983.

FrancieBrady

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

We have pointed out that any candidate voicing anti-vax sentiment would get the same criticism.

O'Doherty has been slated here for her conspiracy theories. Freeman for her funding and ultracatholic background. Gallagher for his FF links and general uselessness for the past 7 years. The other dragons for wasting everyones time.

And many people have had a go at Higgins for being too old, for running again when he said he wouldn't, for making a fortune off the taxpayer.

But alone of all the candidates, it is the SFer who is a victim of an "anti-republican" crowd for shooting her mouth off with antivaxx nonsense.

Sorry, not buying it. I'll be putting her 2nd on my ticket, but she needs to deal with the antivaxx stuff properly.

Who said anything about 'alone' .
And point of info, Ni Riada doesn't have 'anti vaxx' views. Nobody can show where she did anything other than express her confusion and concerns.

seamus

marieholmfan wrote: »

She doesn't have extreme Catholic views (she is no McAleese for example) she is just a Catholic. The loan is not dodgy - though its source is - it is fully declared and absolutely compliant with SIPO rules.

She dropped in my list on two counts:

1. Her claim to have never heard about Iona before the 8th referendum. Not buying it.

2. She claims Mark Hughes is a personal friend. OK. But when asked what she thought about Herbalife, her remark was basically, "Oh, I don't really know much about that, I'll look into it". You don't accept large loans/donations for a political campaign without investigating the lender's background; friend or otherwise.

If you look at the second point; imagine any candidate said, "My good friend <insert name here> gave me a loan.". "Where did they get their money from?". "Oh, I dunno".

Loafing Oaf

seamus wrote: »

She dropped in my list on two counts:

1. Her claim to have never heard about Iona before the 8th referendum. Not buying it..

Even if she was being disingenuous about this, it doesn't follow that she is an ideological fellow traveller of theirs.

VinLieger

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Even if she was being disingenuous about this, it doesn't follow that she is an ideological fellow traveller of theirs.

No it doesn't but then why would she lie about it?

And lets say it is true, shes then admitting to being pretty bloody unengaged in the 2 MAJOR social debates that defined this country in the last 4 years.

I think the question of where each of the nominees were during these debates should be put to everyone. The only person with a suitable answer i would wager will be Ni Riada.

Zubeneschamali

VinLieger wrote: »

No it doesn't but then why would she lie about it?

As I say, if she was a garden variety Catholic, said she voted No but would fulfill her duties, i'd have no issue. And she DID say that, no doubt because someone advised her that folks like me want to hear that.

But then this strange lie about Iona, which makes me think she is hiding something.

And that speech about Knock - that's ultracatholic looper from the 1930s stuff. I had an aunt in the 3rd Order of St. Francis who fancied herself holier than the nuns and even she wouldn't buy that.