Matt Barrett wrote: » I think we need filter out news of national important and news that might cause a stir. It was hardly the burning question of the country ffs. The traveler thing is a chancer of an egotist looking for attention. It's shameful behaviour for anyone to engage in.
RandomName2 wrote: » Is something of a different nature though.
To be honest though I can't think of a party leader saying that the public shouldn't vote for another party.
Royal Legend wrote: » Interesting Whether he continues or pulls out, at this stage he has my vote, not because of his comments, but for his honesty, sadly lacking in our current incumbent and some of the other candidates Michael D stated this morning that his campaign will cost around €360k, who is funding him? Is it Lab/FG/FF or somebody else or out of his own pocket, seeing as he is now a millionaire
Michael D Higgins said he would be funding his campaign "primarily from small individual donations." He added that he would also be contributing a significant sum from his personal savings - to the tune of €110,000.
Royal Legend wrote: » I dont think it was attention seeking, just a opinion he gave that has been and is still being jumped on by the media. What is strange is that the media and Leo are downing him at every opportunity, but the general public are backing him, its like the media want people to change their minds about Casey Yet, Michael D gets a free ride on his expenses, the media dont want to upset Michael D the poor ol divil
Matt Barrett wrote: » Are they? How do you know? Many of us have had run ins with a traveler or two, but it would be the height of ignorance to slate every one of them based on that. Not to forget, Casey was telling lies regarding these particular travelers. That's pretty important. Michael D. was quizzed and responded. What free ride are you talking about? Do you want, as you say, for him to be ' still being jumped on by the media'?
Royal Legend wrote: » But he has still not answered the question properly on the expenses, he will after he is re-elected, now he is saying that the Audit team will publish a comment, not a detailed account of what and where he has spent?
Rhineshark wrote: » Excellent, someone voting for Peter Casey for his honesty but not RE Travellers specifically. So finally someone who can shed some light on this perplexing statement: "I was part of the Good Friday Peace Delegation to the White House that ended up with the team that, sorry, that discussed and ended up making the recommendations that essentially ended up with the Good Friday Peace Agreement." Any idea what he's talking about here? "You know, actually, one of the more extreme suggestions was that we put a ban on hiring in Dublin, in the technology centre, except for replacement. In other words, Microsoft announced that they were creating, and the minister announced it, 250 new jobs. They’re not new jobs. What they’re going to do is they’re going to borrow the people from the 250 people will come from other companies in Dublin." Bit word salad but apparently coherency doesn't matter in a president. Any idea if he's telling the truth about the "extreme suggestion"? Or indeed who "they" are and/or if it is indeed a poaching ploy? How does he know that and if it's the case for Microsoft, isn't it the same for any other jobs created in Dublin? How do you "borrow" staff anyway? "Yeah, I mean, the ridiculous situation down in Cork where the Travellers were refusing four-bedroomed houses because they weren’t being given stables with them. I mean you’ve got to step back and ask yourself. I mean when did…” Well, Honest Peter Casey said it so it must be true (even if wrong county). I mean, you'd think from reading it that "they" had built an estate of houses and all Travellers were refusing based on stables, rather than one group of families who had lived the previous 40 years on a camp outside the town - and built their own stables - who refused as they had nowhere to graze their horses.https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/travellers-and-council-clash-over-grazing-land-for-horses-1.3663379%3fmode=amp (if anyone actually wants context). And then of course was the remark about Higgins protesting a halting site which, despite Casey's extreme honesty, turned out to be flatly untrue. Or it was absolutely true and reality is lying maybe. Seriously. If you're not voting for the all-new Irish Facebook or the Women's Council of Whatever or his amazing ability to dive for golf balls (which he totes did because he wouldn't lie and I have a bridge to sell you in Antarctica) that he's fired into a lake, what does he have going for him? The Traveller comments is really about it.
Royal Legend wrote: » The travellers were in Tipperary by the way. You seem to know a lot about Michael D, whereas I see a champagne socialist, living the life, an intellectual that should in his opinion not be questioned about anything. Not saying the man is perfect like the media make out about Michael D, but in my humble opinion he is a lot straighter than most of the rest.
Matt Barrett wrote: » That old chestnut. Any socialist should be living by the side of the road to have any legitimacy? Give over. .
Rhineshark wrote: » I rather suspect most people who use "champagne socialist" unironically also think that "cultural marxist" has a meaning.
Royal Legend wrote: » not asking him to live by the side of the road, but to know of the €317k expenses, but does not feel he is responsible for how it is spent, seeing as it spent in his name, is laziness at the very least and not consistent imo with so called a socialist president of the people. He comes across as not too bothered on how it has been spent, plus aggrieved that anyone even questions him
Rhineshark wrote: » Well, his office is, but yes, he should have a general idea. But it's not actually his purview to audit and/or release accounts. His job is to be the president, which is mostly meeting people, opening things, generally being a friendly representative to the world and doing what the government tells them to. Attacking him as a candidate/person based on a general rule (even if I don't personally agree with it) is a bit off tbh. Posters keep repeating dishonest without backing it up, just referencing, apparently, this story. Which is really not much to do with him. Were Robinson and McAleese dishonest on the same basis? He wanted a reduced salary and isn't taking various pensions from lecturing which is fair enough. Unless I've missed an actual example of dishonesty or anything specifically dubious regarding the account (bar it's untransparent existence), it all seems a bit overwrought, not least as I'm pretty sure this started off as a mud-sling from another candidate. And especially if the better option appears to be Peter Casey! I'm pretty sure only people who already mistrust him call him the "socialist president of the people". I can't recall seeing it on any other occasion, but it's only ever popped up on boards to me.
Royal Legend wrote: » I never used the word dishonest, lazy, nonchalant, superior would be my take
Royal Legend wrote: » Whether he continues or pulls out, at this stage he has my vote, not because of his comments, but for his honesty, sadly lacking in our current incumbent and some of the other candidates
He has a TD and a Senators pension, which as far as I am aware he cannot draw down while he is president, not sure about a lecturers pension, but if he gets these and then one for being president he will be earning a pretty penny
Peoples president is one that is used in the media, both general and social
Rhineshark wrote: » Still not managed to give any sort of reason though. (And this stuff is fact-checkable by going back two pages and reading it btw.) Thought I had sonething a bit off about the pension. If it's mandatory he refuse the Sen/TD pension, fair enough. Still requested a pay cut and I don't think he takes his lecturer pension. How is this dishon- sorry, "a lack of honesty" though? A phrase used before which has no bearing on political position and not, let us note, the phrase you actually used, which was "so-called socialist president of the people". Pretty sure the same ref (the one you're pretending to have said, not what you actually said) was used for the Marys in their time too. That is a far more neutral phrase. Still not managed to explain Casey's honesty, I see. Or indeed how Higgins is lack-of-honest. Just snarks and then diving off into a different subject/flat denial when challenged. It's not exactly subtle. The weird thing is, I'm not even particularly defending Higgins. I just want people to actually say what their issue is with his character and honesty rather than making insinuations they can't or won't back up. I've made it very clear exactly why I don't think much of Casey with quotes and examples. They are there to be argued or refuted. The Higgins dirt so far isn't even concrete enough to be argued. There's just no facts to work with, only consciously blown smoke. The only argument that at least is an argument is finding him superior and arrogant. Fair enough, it's a subjective assessment and I'm neutral on it but I don't deny your right to find him so. Claims regarding his honesty should be backed up though.
naughtb4 wrote: » I think 7 years is enough for anyone to hold a ceremonial position and therefore will not vote for him. I also dislike the media love in with him. I don't agree with a some of his opinions but I could say that about them all.
Rhineshark wrote: » It's the vague insinuations completely (at least by this thread) unbacked by anything remotely resembling a fact, repeated ad nauseum and either wiggled around or ignored when questioned on that I can't abide.
FrancieBrady wrote: » They aren't 'his' espenses. They are the 'expenses' of the presidency. Spent by every president since this fund was established in 1937 and massively increased under Enda Kenny's government, I think. (maybe wrong on that, but it was hugely increased lately)
Alan_P wrote: » You're entirely wrong on that, on both counts. They were last set in 1998, which is hardly lately, and that would have been under a Fianna Fail government.
Royal Legend wrote: » I never used the word dishonest, lazy, nonchalant, superior would be my take He has a TD and a Senators pension, which as far as I am aware he cannot draw down while he is president, not sure about a lecturers pension, but if he gets these and then one for being president he will be earning a pretty penny Peoples president is one that is used in the media, both general and social
Sam Russell wrote: » He can (but chooses not to) draw his pensions he earned while sitting in the Senate, Dail or as a Minister. He does (I understand) draw a pension from GUI Galway from when he was a lecturer. He would be entitled to draw all these pensions. He also draws a reduced salary as President. The Presidential expense account the other candidates are picking on is used to run the Aras, for activities such as garden parties that allow the President to do those things the other candidates say they will do if they ever become President. I think if you want dishonesty, you should ask the other candidates how they will finance the airy fairy notions of presenting themselves to the Irish public over the next seven years in the unlikely event of them becoming President.
FrancieBrady wrote: » I think Pat Kenny clarified the pension thing. He isn't entitled to draw down some of them.
Sam Russell wrote: » Pat Kenny is not an expert on Government pension entitlements. It depends on what year the pension entitlement is earned. The rules were changed some years back, but MDH earned his pensions before the rules were changed, so he would be entitled to draw them down. I believe Brian Cowan (aged 58) and Bertie Ahern (aged 67) draw hefty pensions and have done for many years. MDH said that he would not consider it right for him to do draw those pensions while he is President.
