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

alaimacerc

blanch152 wrote: »

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/presidential-election-2018/sinn-fin-accused-of-vulgar-abuse-after-party-member-jibes-at-leprechaun-higgins-37424493.html

Free publicity for the Sinn Fein candidate. I doubt it will do her any harm.

Apart from being against flouridation of water, there seems to be no information around on the councillor.

Pretty thin stuff, even for the Indo. Think this thread might feature next?

'"President is a short-arse," say internet randomers."

alaimacerc

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

How can a candidate who is actually running and is fighting for 3rd or 4th place be an example of a 'real candidate we would have got' if MDH wasn't running?

I think that poster maybe forgot the question, and just wanted to say "Joan Freeman" once more. Or maybe a few more times.

VinLieger

alaimacerc wrote: »

Pretty thin stuff, even for the Indo. Think this thread might feature next?

'"President is a short-arse," say internet randomers."

It wont affect Ni Riada's numbers but its still not a good look for the party as a whole. Yes probably every party has similar things in texts or emails somewhere about other party's members but having it in public isnt ideal, especially for SF who are usually pretty locked down when it comes to stuff like this.

gmisk

Deleted User wrote: »

She’s too opinionated to accept being muzzled as president.

Yes you are probably right, I think she is the type of person who people across a wide spectrum would vote for.

I suppose though the president has very little real power.

alaimacerc

marieholmfan wrote: »

Freeman : A bit mad but very very good could do the job

Very very good at what? Playing "free association" with random words from the constitution?

"A bit mad" is possibly a slightly harsh thing to say about a psychologist, mind you...

... though she'd hardly be the first one, either.

marieholmfan

gmisk wrote: »

Catherine Murphy would get my vote if she ever decided to run.

But I think she does a lot of really excellent and necessary work as a TD

Most people who would actually be good at being President would help this country more by doing something else.
Take Joan Freeman for example, would she be a good President ? Indubitably.

Would Ireland and the world be better off if she devoted herself to mental health advocacy?
Indubitably.

It has to be a retirement home I think.

Danzy

marieholmfan wrote: »

Every American fortune is built on slavery and genocide if we go back far enough.

Most slaves came from slaving kingdoms in West Africa.

If we go back far enough you could said that those taken to America were largely hoist by their own petard.

The dead end that is if we go back far enough or pretend that imperialism of slavery are European in origin.

mattser

blanch152 wrote: »

It is a very good question. It is too soon for Enda Kenny, he hasn't been rehabilitated yet.

John Bruton has gone even more conservative right-wing and it out of touch.

Many other senior politicians are either unpopular with sections of society - O'Dea, Noonan, Fitzgerald - because of perceived black marks or have left politics and aren't bothered - Dempsey.

Mary O'Rourke?

:eek::eek::eek:

I think you need to lie down and rest your head.

Loafing Oaf

blanch152 wrote: »

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/presidential-election-2018/sinn-fin-accused-of-vulgar-abuse-after-party-member-jibes-at-leprechaun-higgins-37424493.html

Free publicity for the Sinn Fein candidate. I doubt it will do her any harm.

Apart from being against flouridation of water, there seems to be no information around on the councillor.

I think it's a mark of MDH that even 'vulgar abuse' of them man struggles for any sort of edge. About as venomous as it got even on politics.ie at the last election was a guy asking (in an eerie echo of the SF man's remarks) if Higgins needed to tie wooden blocks to his feet when driving like Short Round from Indiana Jones.

alaimacerc

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Gallagher very strong on Morning Ireland. Will have limited impact though. Huge miscalculation on last night, he will get beaten up over it by other candidates who have, I think, succeeded in making him look very arrogant and Higgins a bit remiss.

The other candidates may not have had to reach too far for synthetic anger on this -- it's probably genuinely miffing for them to get stood up as minor placers, not worth Gallagher's attention. All the more annoying because it might be true.

I'd love it </Kevin Keegan>, though, if the stunt ends up costing SG his expenses cheque. He's sorta on the bubble right now.

alaimacerc

Post-mortem on SO'R now, potentially a decent panel to discuss. (Well, better that last night's, certainly...)

alaimacerc

marieholmfan wrote: »

Take Joan Freeman for example, would she be a good President ? Indubitably.

Really? You seem in a very small minority in your certitude there.

Obviously it's not as if the country would be reduced to a smouldering ruin by a Freeman presidency. If I might paraphrase Duffy, it mainly consists of going around meeting people, making (not necessarily even writing) the occasional speech, and "seeming presidential". The main thing that makes one "seem presidential" is of course... being elected president.

She seems the biggest constitutional duffer out of all of them. (Again, with a field including some rather obvious dwaconic spoofers.) But that's not a deal-breaker -- you get asked pop quizzes in presidential debates, not while actually being president. Then you have no shortage of people on hand to walk you through the options as slowly as necessary.

But "indubitably good"? That's a big claim.

blanch152

mattser wrote: »

:eek::eek::eek:

I think you need to lie down and rest your head.

Mary O'Rourke would poll a lot higher than any of the other candidates challenging Higgins. Doesn't mean she would get my vote, but she is relatively untarnished by FF scandal.

alaimacerc

8j1w94vbmnlt05 wrote: »

Why would anyone bother voting in this election?

Well, if no-one does, it'll be very embarrassing, and we'll have to drop another €20m or so for a do-over until...

FrancieBrady

alaimacerc wrote: »

The other candidates may not have had to reach too far for synthetic anger on this -- it's probably genuinely miffing for them to get stood up as minor placers, not worth Gallagher's attention. All the more annoying because it might be true.

I'd love it </Kevin Keegan>, though, if the stunt ends up costing SG his expenses cheque. He's sorta on the bubble right now.

I think the truth is that Gallagher is afraid of messing up on the important platform - de telly - again.
He turned that to his advantage, he thinks. But it could backfire.

Zubeneschamali

blanch152 wrote: »

Mary O'Rourke would poll a lot higher than any of the other candidates challenging Higgins. Doesn't mean she would get my vote, but she is relatively untarnished by FF scandal.

Half of FF can't stand her, before you start on the other parties.

marieholmfan

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I think the truth is that Gallagher is afraid of messing up on the important platform - de telly - again.
He turned that to his advantage, he thinks. But it could backfire.

I don't think it worked for him. The chatter on the train and at the kettle this morning has all been about the others and not much negative about any of them (other than Duffy's support for hunting and a feeling that Aras Pieta is probably more important that Aras an Uachtaran) no one mentioned Gallagher and there was a general acceptance that Higgins is busy. That's a nine person poll so even the Indo wouldn't bother with it though.

alaimacerc

Rhineshark wrote: »

That the president shouldn't wear symbols is also a reasonable position to have. (Duffy)

IIRC, this is the position McAleese went for, and indeed on this very issue. The president is a symbol, don't be putting symbols on a symbol. (Shamrock is grandfathered in, obvs.)

The RTE summation of the debate certainly went easy on Casey, judging by this thread some of the nonsense he was saying.

I think he's getting something of a fool's pardon at this stage. There are only so many times we can manage an "OMG, Casey said something objectively stupid and widely objectionable" reaction before it's taken as read.

alaimacerc

I've seen a number of "LMGTFY"-grade questions and comments about past presidential elections. For handy reference, here's a complete list! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_presidential_election#Results

_Kaiser_

alaimacerc wrote: »

Well, if no-one does, it'll be very embarrassing, and we'll have to drop another €20m or so for a do-over until...

That's a good point though. Do we have a minimum threshold of votes/turnout for elections? If not, should we?

Given the generally poor turnout we get anyway (unless it's a "fashionable" cause), there's something to be said for the idea IMO.. it could be a damning indictment of candidates/parties and maybe force a badly needed rethink in some cases.

marieholmfan

Should be an option to vote none of the above.

_Kaiser_

marieholmfan wrote: »

I don't think it worked for him. The chatter on the train and at the kettle this morning has all been about the others and not much negative about any of them (other than Duffy's support for hunting and a feeling that Aras Pieta is probably more important that Aras an Uachtaran) no one mentioned Gallagher and there was a general acceptance that Higgins is busy. That's a nine person poll so even the Indo wouldn't bother with it though.

I think a comment on Newstalk breakfast this morning summed it up... most people don't particularly care, and may even be somewhat irritated by this whole (expensive) circus when - barring any last minute shockers - the result is a foregone conclusion.

seamus

marieholmfan wrote: »

Should be an option to vote none of the above.

Then who would be President?

Wanderer78

marieholmfan wrote:

Should be an option to vote none of the above.

That option is always available

alaimacerc

marieholmfan wrote: »

Should be an option to vote none of the above.

I did earlier moot the idea of a "none of the above" option in determining the expenses refund...

Loafing Oaf

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

That's a good point though. Do we have a minimum threshold of votes/turnout for elections? If not, should we?

Given the generally poor turnout we get anyway (unless it's a "fashionable" cause), there's something to be said for the idea IMO.. it could be a damning indictment of candidates/parties

Or of the whole system of choosing a president by popular vote?

_Kaiser_

seamus wrote: »

Then who would be President?

I think the idea is that it might force the parties/candidates to take the process a bit more seriously and present better/stronger candidates to the electorate than most of the cast of the Irish spin-off of a UK reality TV show.

You could extend the same to general elections as well.

marieholmfan

Wanderer78 wrote: »

That option is always available

No because I want a situation where none of the above could win and a seat would be left vacant.

alaimacerc

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

That's a good point though. Do we have a minimum threshold of votes/turnout for elections? If not, should we?

None at all, as far as I know. I think you could in theory get fewer votes than candidates (unlikely, I know, as "do at least vote for yourself" is generally a good plan -- though in a few cases the candidate isn't eligible to vote for themselves). Then you'd have a tie for some of the seats, and I think the procedure for that is just drawing lots (or drawing cards, rolling dice, or something along those lines).

Given the generally poor turnout we get anyway (unless it's a "fashionable" cause), there's something to be said for the idea IMO.. it could be a damning indictment of candidates/parties and maybe force a badly needed rethink in some cases.

I'd rather go the other way, and compel people to vote to some degree. Small civic penalty for not doing, or a small reward if you do. IIRC Australia does both: fine, or sausage? That's a real cake-or-death choice, that is...

Cork Boy 53

IMO, by not turning up for last night`s debate, Gallagher has definitely come across as being arrogant and it may well cost him second place and quite likely his expenses on polling day.