seamus wrote: » Why only the government? Why not the entire Dail, Seanad and county councils?
seamus wrote: » Do you think it's inappropriate that Sinn Fein have backed Ni Riada?
seamus wrote: » Or is it just the fact that Varadkar has criticised Casey?
seamus wrote: » You seem to be advocating a position where the only logical outcome is that no elected official is allowed to provide any input about a presidential candidate.
seamus wrote: » However your use of the word "dictate" seems to reveal some level of double-standard. If you're a government member, then you're "dictating", otherwise you're just someone giving an opinion.
RandomName2 wrote: » The head of the government speaking as head of the government, directly addressing the public. In what fantasy land is that merely an opinion.
seamus wrote: » I think your sticking point here is the mistaken belief that the Taoiseach is "in charge" of the people, and is therefore "dictating" whenever he states an opinion on a matter. He is employed by the people to run the country. Any statement on his part to the people is therefore a recommendation from an employee on the best course of action to take, not a directive from a superior. I see no reason why the person who has been given the most responsibility in the state, should have their opinion muzzled.
RandomName2 wrote: » In the same way that the president can have an opinion on what government the public should elect? :rolleyes:
seamus wrote: » Yes?
Hotblack Desiato wrote: » Varadkar expressing an opinion is not dictating anything and that's a ridiculous suggestion tbh. What's next, he's not allowed say "Vote Fine Gael" ??
Hurrache wrote: » Only in a military dictatorship does it become a dictat. Didn't see everyone agreeing to pay their water bills, why do you think people are going to now vote based on his comments?
FrancieBrady wrote: » Leo jumping on this bandwagon should tell you that disgust at Casey's remarks is the popular outcome. Leo rarely misses a chance when it comes to popular bandwagons.
RandomName2 wrote: » Hurrache uses pedantry Dictate: to prescribe or lay down authoritatively. It wasn't effective.
Hurrache wrote: » So wait, you're either claiming his response to a question is a dictat to how we should vote, or you aren't. Which is it?
Hurrache wrote: » By simply endorsing Higgins, or any candidate, he's implying don't vote for anyone else.
Hurrache wrote: » You tried this one already, nobody bought it. Why are you trying it again?
Hurrache wrote: » You've already said. And you've already been told there's no bandwagon jumping, he was asked a question which he answered. And it's been put to you by others that if he said nothing you'd also try find a way to take a pop. And yet here we are again with you at the exact same thing you said already.
MrMusician18 wrote: » Such is Michael D's popularity coming out against Casey was hardly going to be controversial. Casey is not going to win. What will be interesting is how well he polls. I suspect he will do a lot better than the 2% he was polling at last week even if he ends his campaign early.
FrancieBrady wrote: » And my 'opinion' of the phrasing and content of what he said was to jump on a bandwagon. He has form for this. And it has gotten him in trouble before. You can 'put' whatever you like on here, and so can I.
blanch152 wrote: » Yeah, it has gotten him in so much trouble that his party are now losing votes all over the place. Some perspective is needed.
Royal Legend wrote: » if he pulls out and you still vote for him, will the poll publish his result or will it be classed as a spoiled vote?
FrancieBrady wrote: » Yes, far as I can see on the Presidential election Act 1937 the votes will be counted as normal. I can't find out what would happen in the unlikely event that he would win. But I reckon it would be classed the same as the candidate dying in the intervening period in which case a new election is held.
Rhineshark wrote: » If he did win (due to every other candidate being eaten by a horse-sized duck),