StupidLikeAFox wrote: » This I'd say. I don't think it was the question that felled SG the last time, I think it was his bumbling reaction to it. Then he mentioned the word envelope himself and it was goodnight Irene. When PC threw that accusation out MDH didnt skip a beat and unequivocally denied it. If he had tried to deflect, or pawn it off or mumbled an answer it could have seriously damaged him, even if the accusation was subsequently proven false. That was probably his high point of the night IMO. It also lent a bit more credence to the conspiracy theory that PC is only in it to try bring MDH down on behalf of the other candidates
Eric Cartman wrote: I think this is one of those cases where MDH being a lazy self serving politician only serving his own agenda has come in to play, most other politicians at sometime would have objected to a halting site or a road or social housing or made a comment about migrants in an area or black people in the 60s, but MDH can hold his head up high and deny, because he knows he's only ever served himself and threw a few bones to the irish language and lefty social policies
Hurrache wrote: » What Varadkar said, and what you're claiming, are 2 versions of reality. He was asked about it, what did you expect him to to? Had he said nothing, you'd also try find away to attack him over it.
blanch152 wrote: » For some, Leo can do no right. I can only imagine the extent of your outrage if Varadkar had said something like that Casey was making some legitimate points but in the wrong way or had fully backed him.
FrancieBrady wrote: » The Taoiseach should not be getting involved in a live presidential election when he has no horse in the race himself imo. His answer should have been a respectful, 'No comment'.
blanch152 wrote: » I thought he was backing MDH. Am I wrong?
jay0109 wrote: » The thing is, Casey had nothing to retract. He's entitled to question the awarding of ethnic status to Travellers. It's a valid argument. MSM and the Liberal agenda win again
Larbre34 wrote: » Yeah it is, but it could just be that he's an unmitigated flute.
jay0109 wrote: » That's true but the cries of racist the last few days and the attempts to shut down any debate on Travellers shows that while the Catholic church may be as good as gone, we have a new orthodoxy calling the shots today and woe betide anyone who disagrees with it
Larbre34 wrote: » If he has done any service it would be to leave traveller groups and apologists in no doubt that the people do not buy the red herring of traveller "ethnicity" and are completely eyes-open as to the reality on the ground. .
Jameswhalley wrote: » Varadkar went a step too far basically telling people which way to vote,he just can't resist the mic. He should have expressed his opinion on the matter and left it at that. Casey's comments are dangerous as they are basically a blanket incitement to hatred rather than a rational discussion of the issues with travellers.
jay0109 wrote: » I disagree (unless he gets 10%+ of the vote). The Apologists have won the day and have screamed him into a corner. The ordinary people will look at this and be more likely to keep their mouths even more firmly shut on issues such as Travellers as a result
Jameswhalley wrote: » Casey's comments are dangerous as they are basically a blanket incitement to hatred rather than a rational discussion of the issues with travellers.
blackwhite wrote: » Questioning how appropriate it was to grant special status to travellers isn’t verboten (no matter how much certain lobby groups try to make it so). Making a claim that all travellers are nothing but a group of people who illegally camp on other people’s land is a very different claim to make. It’s a broad and sweeping slur against every member of the travelling community, and that needs to be retracted and apologised for.
