So Michael D IS running again!

Anyone running against Higgins is just looking for some publicity, they have no chance of unseating him.

Johnnycanyon wrote: »

Sam Russell wrote: »

The bill was constitutional so he signed it into law. What else could he do?

Refer it to the Supreme Court .

On what grounds ? He needs grounds to do that.
Also if he did it could never be challenged

GarIT wrote: »

Even after he tried to get a convicted paedophile released from prison by pretending he was acting in an official capacity?

You're wrong on both counts, both regarding paedophilia and claiming to act in an official capacity, but never let the facts...etc

JustAThought wrote: »

while casually signing away the rights of the people,the ownership of water

The ownership of water has not changed and it's not within the president's power it's a matter for the Oireachtas.

and facilitating the taxi service in the med courtesy of the army

I think you'll find it's the Naval Service. President has no powers to order the Defence Forces to do or not do anything, his title of commander-in-chief is ceremonial. I think you've been paying waaay too much attention to US politics and think it applies in an Irish context, it doesn't. Take your issues up with the Minister for Defence.

while pensioners lie terrified in their beds of criminal gangs let run amock tgroughout the country

I blame the media for that, the statistics show burglary is going down and rural burglary is much less than urban

while the rest of the army sits on their arses because noone has the balls to use them.

Who would you like them to be shooting at? Do you really want armed soldiers patrolling the streets routinely with orders allowing them to shoot civilians?

This same man declares himself the commander in chief of the army and armed forces at privileged showcase events

The constitution declares that.

but treats law abiding irish citizens with derision by his apathy and unwillingness to make a decision to.improve the lives of our countrymen and law abiding citizens.

What decision would that be? He can only act within his very limited powers, the Irish public do not appear to have any appetite for an executive style president and it would take major constitutional surgery to give us one.

So your post is nothing but a fact-free rant really.

Hotblack Desiato wrote:

Generally yes. He should have called out Castro and Chavez instead of lionising them though.

Unfortunately the old political left can really put it's foot in it at times, the political left can be disastrous at times

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

You're wrong on both counts, both regarding paedophilia and claiming to act in an official capacity, but never let the facts...etc

If you really want to be pedantic about it sure, the guy wasn't a paedophile, he raped a 15 year old, 15 is past starting puberty so he narrowly misses the exact definition of paedophile.

He may not have said "this letter is coming from the government of Ireland", but if you send a letter with a harp on the top and the reply address being an Irish government building that only people in or working with the government can get access to that counts to me as claiming to act in an official capacity.

If you received a letter on government headed paper from a foreign country asking you to let someone out of jail would you honestly think it was a personal letter sent from a citizen and not a request coming from government?


I'd even have a bit more respect for him if he at least apologised and said the guy deserved his prison sentence but he wouldn't even do that. So Norris' late 40's ex boyfriend had sex with a 15 year old boy who he said he thought was older and Norris replied no when he was asked if he at least thought it was inappropriate. Norris has said he believes there is absolutely nothing wrong in the slightest in what happened, that's crazy to me, I can't understand how anyone has an ounce of respect for him. If Norris was advocating for the same situation but it was a 15 year old girl there would be a witch hunt.

He has since said several times he doesn't believe in the age of consent and thinks we shouldn't have/should remove the age of consent. I'd be in support of some reforms to age of consent especially if the people are of quite similar ages but I don't think any sane person could say a 47 year old and a 15 year old is ok, but norris does and everyone supports him anyway just because he is a well spoken and intelligent gay rights advocate.

David Norris is a lowlife scumbag.

jelutong wrote: »

Am I right in thinking that when in Government he lobbied for a separate licence fee to be levied on each individual radio,tv be it in a home,car etc?

havent a clue to be honest, maybe another boards member can clarify this to both of us?

bobbyss wrote: »

I would vote for Higgins again. But 14 years is too long really for anyone. We should limit it to 7 and be done with one stint.

I'd go for 4 year term length, max two terms and sync it up with the local elections to have one less election.

He did an ok job nothing amazing.

In my opinion he’s too old now to think about another 7 years.

So i am glad there will be an election now to remove him hopefully and he can retire with some honour.

realdanbreen wrote: »

So when Michael D was campaigning for president and said it would be a one off term he was lying?

Lying is an intentional act, a deliberate intent to deceive. I don't believe Michael D lied when he said he woould be a one term president. I believe he thought that at the time, but he has now changed his mind. I wouldn't accuse him of lying, which is a fairly serious accusation to level against anyone.

Many voted for him because he was only going for one term and wasn't trying to hog the job for 14 years.

I can only speak for myself, but I voted him because he is an experienced politician who knows how our government works, because he is cultured, speaks Irish fluently, conducts himself with dignity and because I felt he would be a good representative for Ireland on the world stage.

Right now, I would vote for him again as none of the potential candidates to date would outdo him on the criteria that I've listed above.

GarIT wrote:

I'd go for 4 year term length, max two terms and sync it up with the local elections to have one less election.

That sounds reasonable. Perhaps have a look at his salary too. Does he earn more than President of USA? Maybe look at salary of all Oireschteas members and those expenses.

I’m delighted to hear he’s running again and I’ll vote for him again too.

Yes he said he would only do one term but everyone is entitled to change their mind and it’s really petty of people to say he lied about doing one term, I’ve no doubt at the time that’s what he felt and believed. It would be a sad thing if we called everyone who changed their mind an outright liar.

He’s a figurehead for our country and as that he’s well educated, well spoken and seems to get on well with everyone he meets.

I just wish he would dress a bit better, often his clothes look ill fitting, isn’t it great that after a term in office that’s my biggest gripe.

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Ppl want change at this stage.

Yes, but probably not change to a boom-era FF bag man.

Miggledy should/will win. But I do recognise there is an element of change needed. The problem is that with FF & FG backing him officially, and SF possibly nominating their own, it leave the likely contenders to be 1 independent (if they can get the votes from TDs/senators - I did read somewhre that there is talk of an informal primary between the likes of Craughwell/Ó Céidigh/etc to get 1 nomination), 1 SF and MDH. He'll romp home with that sort of competition.

It is important there is a vote though, if you turned 18 just after the last presidential election and we don't have one now the first time you get to vote for president is when you are 31. Which is a bit mad...

Sean Gallagher. Who is he again? Haven't heard much about him in the last seven years. What's be been doing since the last time? Very low profile. Think maybe people may need a crash course on him.

realdanbreen wrote: »

I don't know what he said about his health 7 years ago. I do know that 7 years ago he said he would only take the job for one 7 year term. I also know that this was put out there as one of his selling points. I also now know that he is just another cute hoor.

But you said yourself you didn't vote for him anyway. This would be like me ranting about Paul Murphy standing for election again as he is entitled to do, when I didn't vote for him the last time either... pointless.

Some people's vote may have been influenced the last time on the basis of him being a one-term president. But he won by a large margin and you can't tell how many people's vote was influenced by that. If they're so unhappy they can vote this time for whatever no-mark senator runs against him.

realdanbreen wrote: »

So you reckon polls & stats is the way to go?
Maybe you should check with Paddy Power who paid out on Hillary winning the election and also paid out on Brexit being defeated before the actual results came in , and ask them what they think of polls & stats

PP will do anything for publicity, that includes deliberately taking a loss on a specific high-profile bet (while simultaneously raking it in on all the others) or paying out early just for the publicity, not caring what the actual outcome is because the publicity is worth the possible loss.

I voted for Gallagher as I thought we needed a businessman up front representing us to help us through the recession. This time around I think someone representing arts and culture like Higgins would be more appropriate. I'd also consider a strong republican if there were one, maybe Gerry, someone who can help push towards the possibility of a united Ireland referendum if Brexit goes to ****.