Loafing Oaf wrote: » Yeah but it’s limerick. Be like calling the American presidential election based on a poll in the Alabama leader.
Rhineshark wrote: » Yeah, that's all true, it is difficult. Because people are complicated (which is why, tbh, I prefer science which is much easier). I am not expert enough to tell you how many is enough, but researchers have found a consensus. However, given genetic distinctions, a noticeably different (and old) culture and a distinct language form branching off from Irish, plus a distinct identification with the rest of said group distinct from the rest of the Irish population more than fulfils those caveats. Far more than Scousers, Cockneys, South Kerrymen or Dubs (I am still unsure where you are getting some of these. What are your sources for fulfilling the conditions that indicate distinct ethnic grouping?) Well, I doubt you are sure of the first. Given ethnographers and anthropologists have been interested in the question of culture and identity for a very long time, they probably have a pretty good idea. Under rules accepted enough to be default for publishing academic papers, which is what the decision was based on, they meet the conditions. (If genetics, language and a distinctly different way of life aren't markers of ethnic distinction btw, what *would* you count?) Yes, Casey can challenge whatever likes, and people are fully entitled to think he's an idiot when he's wrong. Sure, ethnic identity is wooly around the edges. As is psychology. If Casey had said that mental illness doesn't exist and mentally ill people are just idle spongers, surely he is, by your logic, at least arguably right. How many markers of mental illness are enough? How do you define a completely well person? It can't be strictly measured so its all subjective and can be challenged by anyone, no? There's grey areas but working and generally accepted rules, as there is regarding ethnicity. Although since people have historically been inclined to try kill each other over ethnicity, a bit of constructive ambiguity might be wise. When a man running for President suddenly decides to randomly go after the validity of a groups identity when best evidence (and the working rules) indicates they are indeed a distinct group - and goes twice when he's ignorant of the basis for it anyway - he is not "starting a national discussion". He's dogwhistling. So yeah, he can say it. And he'll get some supporters. And he'll hurt some people. And other people will hear him and think him cynical, ignorant and/or an ass. He was on 1% so not like losses of people probably not voting for him mattered anyway. That people called him out on what he said is not unfair, it is the basic corrollery to free speech.
Dia1988 wrote: » Here's my evidence Leo Varadkar advising voters to steer clear of voting Casey.https://www.limerickleader.ie/poll/home/343353/leader-poll-who-are-you-voting-for-in-the-upcoming-presidential-election.html RTE Claire Byrne defending MDH on his 10k dog grooming expenses from "a phone call they just received" Least we forget MDH couldn't be bothered to even turn up to the debate as RTEs Claire Byrne will do the defending for dear aul Michael. For the record, I don't want Peter Casey to be President, I used to be a fan of MDH but he's showing complete arrogance on this election. If I was in the country to vote I'd be voting Liadh Ní Riada, MEP, Gaelgeoir and quite a strong passionate speaker!
blanch152 wrote: » I have read the academic paper and I am not convinced. Ethnicity shouldn't arise from xenophobia or prejudice. You are free to disagree, but there is no standard, which makes me position valid, maybe not equally valid, but valid nonetheless.
CrabRevolution wrote: » I also can't help but notice that the people saying Varadkar should know his place and that the Taoiseach somehow has no right to comment on Irish politics are the same ones saying that it's about time the President pushes the boundaries of their role and publicly comment on whatever they see fit, whether it be travellers, homelessness etc. Bit of a contradiction there.
Johnny Dogs wrote: About as much of a contradiction as suggesting it's pointless/hopeless voting for Casey because even if he gets elected, he won't be able to change anything. Because another 7 years of MDH will be a big change too. Contradiction or hypocritical?
Johnny Dogs wrote: » About as much of a contradiction as suggesting it's pointless/hopeless voting for Casey because even if he gets elected, he won't be able to change anything. Because another 7 years of MDH will be a big change too. Contradiction or hypocritical?
Pussyhands wrote: Miggledy going again for the pres just shows how much of a waste of time it is.
Pussyhands wrote: He'll be 84 in 7 years and may have died by then....so he's basically gone his whole life without a retirement. You'd think after a whole life in politics he'd want some time off to enjoy his family etc. Just goes to show he's getting all that right now. Don't give me guff about he's making an impact etc. If Miggledy wasn't there the country would be in the same place it is now.
Pussyhands wrote: » He'll be 84 in 7 years and may have died by then..
Rhineshark wrote: » ...No, this is more just "understanding the strict limitations of the role of Irish President". If you want to vote for *change*, vote in the general election. We're currently voting for a mouthpiece whose job it is to sound intelligent and friendly as a representative of Ireland.
Tell me how wrote: » How does it. He still has to fulfil the duties of the role. It's not a challenging role, but I believe it does help showcase our country in a positive way and ensures we deal with all visitors with respect. Which helps our standing internationally. I'm not suggesting that no one else could do it but do feel that MDH does it very well, and have no interest in sine have a go hero president thinking they can change the country if they get the job.
Pussyhands wrote: » It's all "respect and dignity" but people need to say what impact he has made. More jobs? Less violence? What exactly?
VinLieger wrote: » Continuing to not understand the constitutional role i see.....
Pussyhands wrote: » Don't need a president for that.
Tell me how wrote: » Neither. I'm.voting for MDH for president because I don't want change in how the office operates from how it has done over the last 7 years.
Pussyhands wrote: » He'll be 84 in 7 years and may have died by then...
Hotblack Desiato wrote: » Martin McGuinness was a lot younger in 2011 but didn't last the 7 years.
realdanbreen wrote: » I wonder will MichaelD be asked about his daughters appointment to the Seanad ?
Rhineshark wrote: » Almost certainly by Casey if he's paid enough attention to know about it, which I doubt. It'll be complete rubbish unless they are suggesting that Higgins moonlights as a hypnotist and made the NUI panel vote for her but Casey doesn't need or work in facts, only insinuations. Doubt any of the rest are quite brazen enough to try it. If anyone wants to argue that, please let me know what his foundation is for insinuating that the Irish public pays for Higgins' dogs...
Cork Boy 53 wrote: » I would imagine that Higgins will be again scrutinised about his use of the government jet which is the only genuine area where he may have a case to answer. The so called nepotism about his daughter`s appointment is just bunkum IMO.
An Ciarraioch wrote: » Evidently, Casey has given up trying to promote himself:https://mobile.twitter.com/CaseyPeterJ/status/1054659988231258112
FrancieBrady wrote: » An answer that would have propelled you to top of the class in my day!
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w2.vanillicon.com/v2/23af546224513cf852af4d456d68d01c.svg)
