Leo Varadkar story in The Village??? - Mod Notes and banned Users in OP updated 16/05

blanch152 wrote: »

What proper channels? He was the Taoiseach.

The proper channel is to go through the relevant Minister., not to undermine his Minister.

donkeykong5 wrote: »

Leo the leak doesn't know the days of the week.

It may be 5 to Midnight in his Dáil career, to borrow the nuclear metaphor, but he's blissfully unaware (of his Midnights).

blanch152 wrote: »

Now that is funny all right.

Some of the bile on this thread is eye-opening.

Some people just don’t like a successful gay son of an immigrant, do they?

Hilarious to see that card being pulled again. Brilliant. Keep it up please.

Fann Linn wrote: »

Desperation measures from the blueshirts now. Interesting to see however that the silence is deafening coming from FG TDs in support of Leo.

Looking where to go.

That post though. I didn't think they would attempt to bring it up on such a high profile story. I'm still smiling.

I haven't caught up on the thread yet. Not sure I need to read more.

ToddDameron wrote: »

Are some of the accounts trying their level best to defend this whole mess also part of Leo's plan to have anonymous accounts post nice things about FG that he proposed two years ago?

You'd have to direct that to PintmanPaddy. I believe he runs their online recruitment campaigns.

The sh1tting "etiquette" thread will be quiet for a while despite all the "Squeaky bums" around the place.

~Rebel~ wrote: »

What d'ya mean "they"?! A person said a thing... do you just imagine hiveminds behind every post or something?

Regardless where you look in politics discussions on here, it's always reduced this stupid lowest common denominator Us V Them nonsense, where every action by every person is deemed an act of the collective, in the minds of far too many.

Not every post, no. But when it comes to posters defending Leo it is usually the case.
In any case, the 'them' in this instance is where I chose to go with it, and it is where I choose to stay.
But seeing as I must explain, the 'them' that it I was really directing it at - is those that choose to bring up that tired and beaten racist/homophobic crap that has been overused for Leo in the past.
In this instance I wasn't thinking so much about the politics of it. Or any of it tbh I just came off an 11 hour shift and was sitting down to relax before bed.
But 'them' could also work for many reasons. It doesn't mean 'all'.

blanch152 wrote: »

Now that is funny all right.

Some of the bile on this thread is eye-opening.

Some people just don’t like a successful gay son of an immigrant, do they?

There we go again. Varadkar in trouble again and blanch is throwing out the homophones allegations and I bet he hasn't commented once on the current issue.

Muahahaha wrote: »

Leo beat Covid on his own and here is the photo opportunity to prove it



Of course that was after he said there would be no photo opportunities of Leos battle against Covid. Then he gets a FG councillor to take his photo and stick it up on Twitter anyway :rolleyes:

That was not taken by a councilor it was taken by the guy who he leaked the documents to.

Deleted User wrote: »

Nothing. The IMO made the agreement public a week before the events published in the village.

If that was the case why did Donnelly and others not see it? The IMO released a press release that mentioned somethings in the proposed agreement, they did not release the document that Leo leaked.

smurgen wrote: »

Still waiting for blance to explain everything to us.

He can't until he is told by John Concannon what to say.

This could go either way - he might brazen it out, thinking that there's enough else going on that eventually the public will stop being all that interested and even if there's a fuss kicked up by the opposition and even members of government it'll eventually blow over. In a sense, I think the story of the leaking of documents might not capture the attention of the public - it's not exactly Watergate. It's not inconceivable that the morass of the daily political news cycle will move on.

But, it looks really damaging when you really look at is. It stinks of a bit of a sly number for a friend and it raises a lot of questions about how he does business and his integrity IMO. Personally, I don't trust Leo: he's obviously as leaky as a sieve and does well out of it. At the very least, this is politically pretty damaging and, at worst, he could eventually fall on his sword. His own explanations and lack of denials are interesting. There would be a bit of poetic justice if a man long suspected for being a bit generous for the sharing of information is brought down by something like this. If he's still issuing clarifications and explanations by Tuesday the odds of him sticking around wouldn't be great.

~Rebel~ wrote: »

What it read as - and still reads as - is you taking issue with someone's post, but instead of actually responding to that post in a way that might create discussion on a discussion forum, you instead posted a message for the "You" against the "Them".

I just see absolutely no use or value in posts like this, as they actively push against discussion and debate (particularly when you don't even address your post to the person you took issue with), and actively increases these idiotic broad 'Our Team' against 'Their Team' divides.

It's just so so common on here, and does accomplishes absolutely nothing positive.
Sorry to be picking up on yours in particular after a long day, it just jumped off the screen as an example of this sort of thing.

Ok.
I didn't even think about what way I was writing it, the 'they' may even have just meant 'Blanch' as I am unsure of their sex.
Also I was quoting somebody else and speaking about them (Blanch).
TBH, I probably couldn't care less, as I have seen worse posts that actively push against any discussion or debate than referring to what could be perceived as a group.
The discussion didn't seem to end either. we are seven hundred and something posts in, I haven't read most of it, nor do I intend to. I wasn't looking to create a discussion or a debate, that had begun long ago, of which we are posting in the middle of now, except instead of it just being me not adding to it, there are now two of us.
I was just commenting on something I had literally just read and I thought was funny.
In fact, I still do.
I hope they keep it up.

Arghus wrote: »

This could go either way - he might brazen it out, thinking that there's enough else going on that eventually the public will stop being all that interested and even if there's a fuss kicked up by the opposition and even members of government it'll eventually blow over. In a sense, I think the story of the leaking of documents might not capture the attention of the public - it's not exactly Watergate. It's not inconceivable that the morass of the daily political news cycle will move on.

But, it looks really damaging when you really look at is. It stinks of a bit of a sly number for a friend and it raises a lot of questions about how he does business and his integrity IMO. Personally, I don't trust Leo: he's obviously as leaky as a sieve and does well out of it. At the very least, this is politically pretty damaging and, at worst, he could eventually fall on his sword. His own explanations and lack of denials are interesting. There would be a bit of poetic justice if a man long suspected for being a bit generous for the sharing of information is brought down by something like this. If he's still issuing clarifications and explanations by Tuesday the odds of him sticking around wouldn't be great.

Depending on how things shake up, it could see Simon Coveney take over FG. Which I think would be a good thing for all involved anyway... he's a bit more measured, and tends to lean a good bit further left on issues than Varadkar does (without being extreme by any means). Has been behind a lot of the better FG moves over the past 4 years too, particularly with regards to Brexit and Europe. The broader grassroots elements of the party were in favour of him being in charge from the getgo anyway.