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

An Ciarraioch

Presumably papers could publish polls tomorrow if the moratorium is in the afternoon? In any case, RTE will release an exit poll on the Late Late, according to Gavan Reilly.

Eric Cartman

seamus wrote: »

He is. It's as bigotted and moronic as claiming that all muslims are terrorists. It's a statement for the small minded idiots, exactly the kind of damaging rubbish that Trump engages in.

Firstly the trump comparissons are irellevant and wrong, secondly its more like saying that all muslims who believe terrorism is the answer are terrorists.

The section of travellers who want to be described as an ethnic minority (so not all of them) are doing so to win court cases or financial gain, theres no other benefit to it.

alaimacerc

The Ni Riada salary thing was pretty bad. Much worse than I'd imagined, both in terms of the facts, and how she handled it on the night. I thought she'd just got a "pay raise" -- from the SF leadership, not from the EU -- since the Hot Press interview. Not that she was telling bould porkies at the time. And the amount is rather considerable, too. €47k after-tax take-home, €13k in "constituency expenses" -- after all, the EU is notoriously stingy in expenses payments, right?! -- and €40k tax paid. Doesn't that add up to €100k? Yet on she spluttered how it was "average", and an amount that was hard to manage on.

After she'd made half a step forward on the anti-vax thing. She apologised for "raising concerns"... rather avoiding the issue of her disclosed both her daughters' vaccination. Then spinning being asked followups on the same thing as "sinister hounding". Even attempted to preemptively characterise McCullough's questioning in those terms, when he was actually asking a much vaguer "judgement" question.

Also made the world's most ironic "I didn't interrupt you"... right after a series of heckling interruptions. And right before another set. Still clearly the second-best candidate of the field -- which speaks volumes.

The dwagons-- no, sorry, they don't to be called that, my bad. The crony capitalist chancers were ridiculous. The drawing of lots did them no favours, leaving them on a cranky kiddy dais all of their own.

Casey declaring that the only racist thing you can say about an ethnic group that's asked to be recognised as an ethnic group... is that they're an ethnic group. Attempting to cog MDH's homework from an earlier debate for the constitutional testing of a bill. (Proving that he's maybe a quicker study than Joan Freeman, who struggles terribly when asked any of the process or substance questions.) Wants a harem of random womenfolk on his council of state. He'd want to have the odd lawyer and constitutional expert, given his own intellectual shallows. Not to mention, zeal to make up stuff and to cheerfully libel opponents. Can do that in the US, Petes, but not in Ireland!

Gallagher same as always. i.e., bizarrely poor. Trying to answer the question before last, or the question he wished he'd been asked, or no discernible question at all.

Duffy better than the other two, but that's to damn with very faint praise indeed. Bumbled rather ineffectually, did nothing to help retrieve his looming prospects of clutching 6th out of the jaws of 5th.

Freeman the same as always, too. Strident, unlikable, construing offence at the most obvious of questions, and generally incompetent.

Not MDH's best debate either. Seems a little flustered at times, and somewhat self-important at others. (Beats being self-deluding, all the same.)

The moderator I thought was excellent. No idea what the AH crowd were on about, slagging him off in their typically trenchant terms. Well, I can make a guess -- he showed up their Trumpy folk hero rather badly. Or maybe they're just diehard fans of The Plank, who knows.

Trent Houseboat

Eric Cartman wrote:

Firstly the trump comparissons are irellevant and wrong, secondly its more like saying that all muslims who believe terrorism is the answer are terrorists.

The section of travellers who want to be described as an ethnic minority (so not all of them) are doing so to win court cases or financial gain, theres no other benefit to it.[/b]

Anything in the way of proof, or just your feeling?

I could go either way on whether they should and what the benefits of Traveller ethnicity are, but you appear to be just making things up and asserting them as fact.

alaimacerc

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Firstly the trump comparissons are irellevant and wrong,

No, first show your working. Because in the non-koolaid-drinking world, they seem bang on.

secondly its more like saying that all muslims who believe terrorism is the answer are terrorists.

Another bizarre and poorly constructed comparison.

The section of travellers who want to be described as an ethnic minority (so not all of them) are doing so to win court cases or financial gain, theres no other benefit to it.

Exactly what "financial gain"? Casey failed to deal with this, AH failed to deal with this; third time's the charm, from yourself, perhaps?

alaimacerc

Walter Bishop wrote: »

Sure he can say and promise whatever he wants, he knows he's never going to have to fulfill any of it.

Makes a cynical sort of sense, and might even save him some of his €100k or so out of pocket. There might easily be 12.5% of the vote on slagging off Travellers and people on welfare

James Brown

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Firstly the trump comparissons are irellevant and wrong, secondly its more like saying that all muslims who believe terrorism is the answer are terrorists.

The section of travellers who want to be described as an ethnic minority (so not all of them) are doing so to win court cases or financial gain, theres no other benefit to it.

This is not a fact. This is your opinion based on your conclusion.

The Trump comparison is completely relevant. Although the office may really only have the name in common it's the purposefully divisive ignorant spin and scapegoating of minority groups were Casey and Trump meet.

One would wonder why Casey wants to be President when he'll be representing Travelers, people on welfare, the sick and poor...you know all the ones responsible for the squeezed middle :rolleyes:

seamus

Eric Cartman wrote: »

The section of travellers who want to be described as an ethnic minority (so not all of them) are doing so to win court cases or financial gain, theres no other benefit to it.

Apart from cultural recognition?

Would you say that we should give up the "Irish" thing and just call ourselves "European"? Or perhaps the Irish revolutionaries were mistaken in fighting for the right to be recognised as a separate state?

After all, there's no benefit to it.

I, personally, actually look quite dimly on people who make heritage and culture a huge deal, and who believe it should be protected at all costs. But as a human being, I understand the power and significance that heritage and culture play for the individual, and the desire to express it.

I think it's amazingly unaware of anyone to think that only money motivates people. Money is way down the list. People have burned their own countries to the ground in arguments over culture.

James Brown

seamus wrote: »

Apart from cultural recognition?

Would you say that we should give up the "Irish" thing and just call ourselves "European"? Or perhaps the Irish revolutionaries were mistaken in fighting for the right to be recognised as a separate state?

After all, there's no benefit to it.

I, personally, actually look quite dimly on people who make heritage and culture a huge deal, and who believe it should be protected at all costs. But as a human being, I understand the power and significance that heritage and culture play for the individual, and the desire to express it.

I think it's amazingly unaware of anyone to think that only money motivates people. Money is way down the list. People have burned their own countries to the ground in arguments over culture.

Culture and heritage should be celebrated, but not to the extent of lording it over or diminishing another group. I think it's great having such things as French, Spanish etc. culture to explore and take part in. It would be a shame if countries didn't actively support celebrating and maintaining such things.

alaimacerc

seamus wrote: »

There hasn't been enough time for Casey's hateful bile to be converted from trolly rubbish to a supported campaign. Trump had a long lead in time. Casey will be relieved, he doesn't want to be elected.

Trump also had a pretty solid partisan base. Some Country-Club Republicans might blush a little at his shameless lies, rabble-rousing nonsense, and dictator-chic aesthetics... but would have voted for him anyway. And his deal with established parts of the "conservative coalition" is pretty clear. More military spending. A hard line on reproductive rights. Massive tax cuts for corporations and ultra-high earners.

So his trolling of the angry rust-belt racist demographic only had to pick up a relatively few votes. Especially given the structure and general weirdness of the electoral college. Say from 40% to the 46% he actually got.

Casey has to get from 2% to 50.1%. Tricky. But not impossible. Turnout will be terrible, and there might be a certain amount of "shy Caseyians" out there that didn't show up on opinion polling.

Honestly, though, if he so much as saves his deposit, it should be seen as a gross national embarrassment.

alaimacerc

blanch152 wrote: »

Traveller culture is far removed from its origins.

Removed by whom, though?

The state has basically legally and economically abolished the Traveller lifestyle as was. Popular attitudes add to that. Then further denigrates them as idle feckless spongers, which is double-dipping on the victim-blaming, frankly.

It's our collective mess. It'll need to be collectively cleaned up. Casey is the animal spirit of the people that want to heckle mindlessly from the sidelines while that work is attempted, however imperfectly.

Hurrache

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Reads like you did.

You say you're not validating the comparison then set about trying to validate the comparison.

Wow, you're really stretching things, somehow conflating my comments as saying all travellers are such and such, when I never even mentioned them.

How bizarre.

blanch152

alaimacerc wrote: »

Removed by whom, though?

The state has basically legally and economically abolished the Traveller lifestyle as was. Popular attitudes add to that. Then further denigrates them as idle feckless spongers, which is double-dipping on the victim-blaming, frankly.

It's our collective mess. It'll need to be collectively cleaned up. Casey is the animal spirit of the people that want to heckle mindlessly from the sidelines while that work is attempted, however imperfectly.

Mostly by Traveller behaviour.

As I said elsewhere, modern day Traveller customs are to traditional Traveller culture what plastic green leprechauns are to traditional Irish culture. It is sad to see a noble tradition reduced to what we see today.

jm08

alaimacerc wrote: »

The Ni Riada salary thing was pretty bad. Much worse than I'd imagined, both in terms of the facts, and how she handled it on the night. I thought she'd just got a "pay raise" -- from the SF leadership, not from the EU -- since the Hot Press interview. Not that she was telling bould porkies at the time. And the amount is rather considerable, too. €47k after-tax take-home, €13k in "constituency expenses" -- after all, the EU is notoriously stingy in expenses payments, right?! -- and €40k tax paid. Doesn't that add up to €100k? Yet on she spluttered how it was "average", and an amount that was hard to manage on.

If what she says is true that she is the sole earner in her family of 4 and bearing in mind she spends her week in Brussels, 47K isn't a huge amount.

From what she said, she uses the 13K to for instance, bring constituents over to Brussels (for whatever reason).

alaimacerc

jm08 wrote: »

If what she says is true that she is the sole earner in her family of 4 and bearing in mind she spends her week in Brussels, 47K isn't a huge amount.

That's fair comment, but when she's explaining having misrepresented 100K as 47K, better to go heavier on the "oops, my bad", and easier on the "poor marginalised me".

From what she said, she uses the 13K to for instance, bring constituents over to Brussels (for whatever reason).

OK. But bear in mind that she's also entitled to... €4,416 per month (another 53K pa) in a "general expenditure allowance", full travel expenses to the parliament plus €313 as a per diem, and other travel expenses besides for other business related to their role. So "expenses the parliament doesn't cover" seems a biiiiig stretch, frankly. I'm sure in formal terms it's entirely legitimate, but it sounds a whole lot like "additional discretionary spending", rather than "expenses" as any normal employer would understand it.

MrMusician18

alaimacerc wrote: »

Trump also had a pretty solid partisan base. Some Country-Club Republicans might blush a little at his shameless lies, rabble-rousing nonsense, and dictator-chic aesthetics... but would have voted for him anyway. And his deal with established parts of the "conservative coalition" is pretty clear. More military spending. A hard line on reproductive rights. Massive tax cuts for corporations and ultra-high earners.

So his trolling of the angry rust-belt racist demographic only had to pick up a relatively few votes. Especially given the structure and general weirdness of the electoral college. Say from 40% to the 46% he actually got.

Casey has to get from 2% to 50.1%. Tricky. But not impossible. Turnout will be terrible, and there might be a certain amount of "shy Caseyians" out there that didn't show up on opinion polling.

Honestly, though, if he so much as saves his deposit, it should be seen as a gross national embarrassment.

I agree with you, but I suspect for different reasons. If Casey does well, it should be seen as an embarrassment, but for our political class.

In an era when we have consensus politics, that a loudmouth inarticulate loon by essentially saying that travellers shouldn't be allowed to take the piss, takes a substantial vote in a national election, should indeed draw shame. But it's shame on the political class that allowed the situation to develop by totally ignoring moderate and reasonable concerns in the first place.

alaimacerc

blanch152 wrote: »

Mostly by Traveller behaviour.

That's in denial even of the basic logic of your own account, and of all rudimentary sociology.

If you said "it's mostly their own fault" about some other disadvantaged group, at home, abroad, or in the past, it'd be an "I'm get me coat" moment in polite company. Travellers are the group it's socially acceptable to victimise, and then victim-blame.

James Brown

Hurrache wrote: »

Wow, you're really stretching things, somehow conflating my comments as saying all travellers are such and such, when I never even mentioned them.

How bizarre.

I merely quoted your attempt to validate the comparison between bankers and travelers. If that wasn't your intent, fair enough.

alaimacerc

MrMusician18 wrote: »

In an era when we have consensus politics, that a loudmouth inarticulate loon by essentially saying that travellers shouldn't be allowed to take the piss [...]

"essentially" doing a whole lot of word in that sentence.

This is a bit like the people who used to say that Vincent Browne was terribly biased... by having a range of people with extreme views on his programme. They liked the nasty views, but wished they didn't sound so bad coming out of someone else's mouth! He should have found some hypothetical more articulate, respectable, socially acceptable person to bash immigrants, gay people, etc. Uh, yeah. Good luck with that.

McMurphy

Thought Higgins came across terribly last night, he let himself down terribly with his (non?) Answers ref the jet, claimed he'd used it only a few times, then had to have his memory refreshed, and didn't give an answer at all, ref why he told lies surrounding the Belfast trip.

Truth be told, I seen an angle to him i hadn't seen before, angry, condescending, and he had a look of arrogance at times that kind of suggested be was thinking to himself "who do these plebs think they're questioning, how very dare they!"

He's not showing up tonight at all apparently, which I think is a bad move personally, I mean, god forbid someone drops of a clanger on him tonight, true or not, he'd be better off being able to defend it in person.

What with the established party's wanting him to enjoy an unchallenged coronation, I'll she'd no tears if he is ousted.

He's had his time, 77 is a grand age to retire and enjoy his millions.

MrMusician18

alaimacerc wrote: »

That's in denial even of the basic logic of your own account, and of all rudimentary sociology.

If you said "it's mostly their own fault" about some other disadvantaged group, at home, abroad, or in the past, it'd be an "I'm get me coat" moment in polite company. Travellers are the group it's socially acceptable to victimise, and then victim-blame.

Being disadvantaged can be the root cause of many social ills for certain groups and discrimination can indeed reduce access to things like education. That said, no traveller had been denied access to education in my lifetime that I can remember because they were a Traveller.

But being disadvantaged doesn't mean you get a free pass to litter and act anti social, to harbour criminality within the community or to treat animals poorly. These are charges that can be laid at many Traveller communities, not just the "small minority" pavee point would have you believe.

So whose fault is it, that travellers find themselves on the margins? Surely there must be some self responsibility, because if travellers lived quietly and cleanly on the side of the road (even if they were all unemployed), I doubt many would care enough to get incensed by them.

James Brown

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Thought Higgins came across terribly last night, he let himself down terribly with his (non?) Answers ref the jet, claimed he'd used it only a few times, then had to have his memory refreshed, and didn't give an answer at all, ref why he told lies surrounding the Belfast trip.

Truth be told, I seen an angle to him i hadn't seen before, angry, condescending, and he had a look of arrogance at times that kind of suggested be was thinking to himself "who do these plebs think they're questioning, how very dare they!"

He's not showing up tonight at all apparently, which I think is a bad move personally, I mean, god forbid someone drops of a clanger on him tonight, true or not, he'd be better off being able to defend it in person.

What with the established party's wanting him to enjoy an unchallenged coronation, I'll she'd no tears if he is ousted.

He's had his time, 77 is a grand age to retire and enjoy his millions.

While I think he's the best man for the job, the idea of Gallagher representing the country is horrifying.

Hurrache

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I merely quoted your attempt to validate the comparison between bankers and travelers. If that wasn't your intent, fair enough.

It certainly was not my attempt, I even explicitly said it wasn't.

WinnyThePoo

Thought mdh was good. I suppose fine gael not putting forward a candidate and endorsing the best man for the job just riles up a few people on the island.

James Brown

Hurrache wrote: »

It certainly was not my attempt, I even explicitly said it wasn't.

It read like you did, 'not all bankers'. Reads like comparing an industry to a people.
It follows on from a post wondering why you can't lay a claim on all travelers but nobody defends Bankers.

Silentcorner

What is very enjoyable about all this is how the Irish media are reacting to it.

It has gone from being the most one sided race in Irish political history to being a much closer affair (if the bookies odds are anything to go by), and yet the media are not framing it that way...one official poll would give us all a good indicator but strangely enough, we haven't seen a poll since Peter Casey went off message last week.

I have heard media commentators across the media landscape, from RTE to Newstalk, heap insult after insult on Peter Casey, it's like they don't want to accept how irrelevant they have become, or more likely, they do not want to accept how a fairly significant percentage of Irish people have nothing but disdain for Irish media or why!

There is a very good chance, that come Saturday morning, the Political Establishment, Irish media will get a very strong slap in the face, if they do not understand why, they run the risk of FF type irreverence over the next ten years!!

Hhugedick

Why do you think Gallagher is so bad? I think he comes across as very honest and intellectual. Got badly shafted 7 years ago by rte. I think mdh is just to old at 77, terrible thing to say but he may die in office which I think is terrible. I'll be voting for Sean Gallagher but of course I know he hasn't got the numbers.

Adamcp898

Wasn't a great night for anyone, truth be told.

Didn't think McCullagh was all that great tbh. I know most people won't watch all the TV debates, never mind listen to the radio ones as well, but he must've borrowed Cormac's copy book because it was all old ground already covered with room added for Peter's new stuff. Didn't appear to be taking it too seriously at times either, and I know most of us aren't, but surely at least the moderator has to put on a stern veneer and offer the illusion that this is worth anyone's time. And oh Christ, how can I forget resting the skeptical hand on his chin only to cover his mic and muffle his questions............constantly. Having Seanin ask him to stop calling them Dragon's was a highlight though, along with Ireland's Fittest Family.

Freeman with her usual "Let me have a go now, I haven't spoke in while" shtick. Bizarrely managed to fudge the Office responsibilities questions again, after being asked the exact same ones by O'hEadhra in the radio debate. But in saying that most of them didn't score 100% here either with aid of the re-sit. She did get one thing right when she commented that she still didn't understand just what any of the 3 'civic benefactors' actually wanted to do.

LNR had the biggest hiccup of the night. First having a non-argument about her children being brought into her public life........by bringing up her children to try and explain away her daft logic yet again. She finally gave up the "poor, marginalised me" trope as well, but I guess perhaps even she didn't have the neck to mention it after her trying to pass of her salary as the average industrial wage.

Michael D really isn't taking this all that seriously I feel. He knows that he only has one attack to prepare for, the old Lear and Geneva one-two, but he still can't come up with any better answers than trying to explain all this great work he and the IDA somehow do when they're in-and-around the jet and penthouse suite. Still he's the only one that seems able to say three consecutive sentences without pausing to correct himself or collect his thoughts, I guess the bar has been set.

SG4Pres2k112k18 - Still don't know what he's trying to do. His pre-prepared monologue about how he took a massive bullet for us all when he took RTE to task for THE tweet was cringe-worthy. And he managed to follow it up by talking about this great commercial business of his as if it was the panacea to all the country's woes and the gift of the Presidency is the least we could offer in return. Wondering how long he was sitting on the "Imagination not Legislation" line..........

Mr PC - His usual entertaining self. The debates so far all seem to have followed the theme of "ask barely relevant question after question until one of the Dragons gets bored and has a swipe at someone" - Peter's usually the safe bet. +1 for giving the wife a job just to keep him on his toes.

Duffy - Not the first time he was asked how he would pay for this grand Youth Corps to rival MSF but yet still couldn't offer a convincing answer.

blanch152

Silentcorner wrote: »

What is very enjoyable about all this is how the Irish media are reacting to it.

It has gone from being the most one sided race in Irish political history to being a much closer affair (if the bookies odds are anything to go by), and yet the media are not framing it that way...one official poll would give us all a good indicator but strangely enough, we haven't seen a poll since Peter Casey went off message last week.

I have heard media commentators across the media landscape, from RTE to Newstalk, heap insult after insult on Peter Casey, it's like they don't want to accept how irrelevant they have become, or more likely, they do not want to accept how a fairly significant percentage of Irish people have nothing but disdain for Irish media or why!

There is a very good chance, that come Saturday morning, the Political Establishment, Irish media will get a very strong slap in the face, if they do not understand why, they run the risk of FF type irreverence over the next ten years!!

I don't think it is a close race at all. I think Casey will do better than 2%, but it is difficult to see him breaking the 10% barrier. He will pull votes from Gallagher, and probably cost Gallagher his deposit.

Na Riadha is fighting Duffy for fourth spot, but I would be amazed if Higgins doesn't pull in more than 50%. Casey has hit a nerve with people, but he isn't the one to exploit it, it needs a cleverer politician than him.

James Brown

Hhugedick wrote: »

Why do you think Gallagher is so bad? I think he comes across as very honest and intellectual. Got badly shafted 7 years ago by rte. I think mdh is just to old at 77, terrible thing to say but he may die in office which I think is terrible. I'll be voting for Sean Gallagher but of course I know he hasn't got the numbers.

Shafted? What part was untrue? The source, not the content.
Honest? No, not really now. Intellectual? Possibly, not savvy any way.
He's got ego issues and has not the appropriate character for the office.