Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

So Michael D IS running again!

24567186

Comments

  • Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,061 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    bubblypop wrote: »
    Has a serving president ever died?

    Erskine Childers. Initially FF wanted to replace him with his wife without an election, in the end he got replaced by Cearbhall O'Dalaigh (without an election) who resigned and was replaced by Hillery (without an election!). Hillery served 14 years without ever being voted in by the public.

    O'Dalaigh would have died in office had he not resigned and of course Lenihan and McGuinness also died before the term they ran for expired.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 482 ✭✭badtoro


    I hope a decent candidate will run against him.


  • Registered Users Posts: 537 ✭✭✭Etc


    badtoro wrote: »
    I hope a decent candidate will run against him.

    Remember 2011 ?

    Here's who he was up against...

    Sean Gallagher
    Martin McGuinness
    Gay Mitchell
    David Norris
    Dana Rosemary Scanlon
    Mary Davis.

    The only name I've heard bandied so far has been Miriam O'Callaghan, I may have missed others but reflecting back on the last list of candidates who would be better and why ?


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,415 ✭✭✭touts


    L1011 wrote: »
    Erskine Childers. Initially FF wanted to replace him with his wife without an election, in the end he got replaced by Cearbhall O'Dalaigh (without an election) who resigned and was replaced by Hillery (without an election!). Hillery served 14 years without ever being voted in by the public.

    O'Dalaigh would have died in office had he not resigned and of course Lenihan and McGuinness also died before the term they ran for expired.

    So does the clock restart on the death of the president and they can serve 14 years without an election? Does that mean if Michael D somehow lasts another 6 years and 11 months they could just pop Enda Kenny in his place and we wouldn't get to vote for 28 years.


  • Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,061 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    touts wrote: »
    So does the clock restart on the death of the president and they can serve 14 years without an election? Does that mean if Michael D somehow lasts another 6 years and 11 months they could just pop Enda Kenny in his place and we wouldn't get to vote for 28 years.

    It resets on them leaving office for any reason - death, resignation or timing out. Imprisonment for >6 months probably also as I believe normal Oireachtas rules apply.

    However, as soon as it resets anyone who can get nominated can run - its not that there can't be an election. There were mutterings about nominating people against O'Dalaigh and Hillery and also Norris and Fergus Finlay discussed running against McAleese in 2004.

    If the parties agree a unified candidate and nobody can get through the council route we could never have an election again. It probably looked quite like that coming up to 1990 when there'd been 3 different holders since the last election!

    We don't have anything like the US system of having a VP to replace without an election, there is always the potential for an election when a President leaves office


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,089 ✭✭✭Happy4all


    bubblypop wrote: »
    Has a serving president ever died?

    No. Guarantees him another 7 years living


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 16,015 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    Are these statements really original? Has he said or did anything that would stand him out from anyone else?

    "I'm the President"?
    Here, Google. You asked had he done, said anything. He went to the states, but so did I...so not sure what you're looking for.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,584 ✭✭✭ligerdub


    pixelburp wrote:
    The inference seemed clear enough, you're imply he somehow deceived voters who only voted for him because of a promise to serve a single term. And if you don't think people en-masse voted, then why even bring it up as a rod to beat him with?


    I think it's an entirely valid point to make, especially considering how often presidential terms are entered unopposed/without an election.

    If it wasn't seen as relevant to how somebody may vote then he and the others wouldn't have been asked if they planned on being a one term President.

    It's largely unsuitable to put a figure on the % of people who voted for him on the basis of him being a one term only guy (because that's not what we were asked on the ballot paper). It's probably not significant in this case anyway as from what I can remember Higgins won quite easily. In some cases though even a 1% shift due to an issue like this could sway an election, so it's not immaterial.

    I don't get this take of "who cares? It's a ceremonial and insignificant role." "I like him so let him carry on" and "people are chirping up so they can stand against him" and the likes. It's a role of great significance to the nation and people should have the right to contest an election.

    I'll probably vote for him again myself but let's see a contest here, and let's not bat away any contenders because a vote might be seen as an inconvenience to those who don't want to get off their arse to vote.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 482 ✭✭badtoro


    Etc wrote: »
    Remember 2011 ?

    Here's who he was up against...

    Sean Gallagher
    Martin McGuinness
    Gay Mitchell
    David Norris
    Dana Rosemary Scanlon
    Mary Davis.

    The only name I've heard bandied so far has been Miriam O'Callaghan, I may have missed others but reflecting back on the last list of candidates who would be better and why ?

    Miriam isn't running last I heard, thankfully. I don't have a prefered person in mind, I don't like our current president due to a past action. Theresa Lowes sister has been mentioned, but how about Theresa Lowe herself as a wildcard. She's intelligent and photogenic which doesn't hurt, and she's a dinger at geography as well as being a former TV personlity and now barrister.


  • Registered Users Posts: 21,886 ✭✭✭✭Roger_007


    Most people that I know don't give a hoot who the president is, as long as they are ok at the 'meet and greet' stuff and don't embarrass us on the world stage. The role is largely ceremonial anyway with no executive power.
    I don't know why some posters seem to think that Higgins has no right to stand again having indicated that he wouldn't at the last election. He is perfectly entitled to change his mind. In a democracy anyone who is legally eligible to stand for any elected office can do so.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 26,458 ✭✭✭✭gandalf


    The guy is a figure head with no power. He's our version of the Queen without the bling.

    Given the non-candidates who have revealed themselves any election would be a waste of time and resources. Also if Sean Gallagher is whinging then Michael D is doing something right.


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,254 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    It is ironic that Mary Lou McDonnald is looking for an election as that would be democratic - just as SF elected their president the last two times.

    No, wait ......


  • Registered Users Posts: 655 ✭✭✭Bellerstring


    Everone says Mickey D has done us proud and performed his duties as President with absolute excellence.
    How could he not?
    Going to sports events, having meet & greets, cutting ribbons, laying wreaths, shaking hands..
    When was the last time we had a President were most people said " They're a really bad/ordinary President".
    They all carried out their duties with dignity and aplomb.
    He should be on his way.
    My personal choice would be David Norris, but he said he wouldn't run (again)


  • Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,061 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    When was the last time we had a President were most people said " They're a really bad/ordinary President".

    O'Dalaigh didn't justify the comment that led him to resign but he wasn't great; Hillery was extremely bland but it suited the era.


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,977 ✭✭✭✭Rjd2


    Everone says Mickey D has done us proud and performed his duties as President with absolute excellence.
    How could he not?
    Going to sports events, having meet & greets, cutting ribbons, laying wreaths, shaking hands..
    When was the last time we had a President were most people said " They're a really bad/ordinary President".
    They all carried out their duties with dignity and aplomb.
    He should be on his way.
    My personal choice would be David Norris, but he said he wouldn't run (again)
    Roger_007 wrote: »
    Most people that I know don't give a hoot who the president is, as long as they are ok at the 'meet and greet' stuff and don't embarrass us on the world stage. The role is largely ceremonial anyway with no executive power.
    I don't know why some posters seem to think that Higgins has no right to stand again having indicated that he wouldn't at the last election. He is perfectly entitled to change his mind. In a democracy anyone who is legally eligible to stand for any elected office can do so.



    Actually think both of those posts have serious merit. I agree I don't care who the president is nor does any of my social circle and if Michael D gets another term it doesn't bother me whatsoever, but those who are putting him on a pedestal need to calm down.Its a relatively easy job which you can't really balls up. Heck if Trump was our president he wouldn't be that much of a disaster:D


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,671 ✭✭✭GarIT


    My personal choice would be David Norris, but he said he wouldn't run (again)

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

    David Norris is no better than any of the priests that stood by while they knew what was going on and said nothing in my opinion.

    I'm just reading up more on him now, in 2011 he said he wanted to use the presidency as a platform to tackle homophobia around the world and confront leaders of regimes that oppress gay people. I'm totally against that. The responsibility of our president is to make us look good not to start verbal fights with non-neutral countries. I much prefer the presidential approach of being peaceful and friends with everyone or at least just say nothing and not "call out" people like Putin and whoever rules Saudi Arabia like Norris wanted to.


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,325 ✭✭✭✭jimmycrackcorm


    pixelburp wrote:
    The status of President has barely any executive power, it's a purely diplomatic, aspirational & ambassadorial role - so in that respect Higgins has done Ireland proud and would be happy for him to continue.

    I'd like to have a choice though. In many respects he reminds me of Hillary.
    I'm glad. He's the best president we've had IMO. There is generally an element of ego and novelty for many running, however he's proved himself to be a great ambassador.

    I think Mary Robinson was a far better president.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,322 ✭✭✭JustAThought


    This country is taking giant steps backwards . An utterly depressing backward leap. Just what we need - another self important failed politician engorged with taxpayers wealth and privelige who delivers nothing but costs millions. The most nauseauting champagne socialist. 36 rider motorbike escorts? A black hole of entitlement and absolute waste - while casually signing away the rights of the people,the ownership of water and facilitating the taxi service in the med courtesy of the army while pensioners lie terrified in their beds of criminal gangs let run amock tgroughout the country while the rest of the army sits on their arses because noone has the balls to use them. This same man declares himself the commander in chief of the army and armed forces at privileged showcase events 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 use is he - a fridge magnet would do as much if it could speak..


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,033 ✭✭✭realdanbreen


    pixelburp wrote: »

    Beyond his age being a negative - to which I'd be a little reluctant myself - do you feel he has done a bad job as president?

    Whether he has done a good or bad job is immaterial to the point I was making, but of course you know that full well.
    With all the advisors, aides, PA's, staff etc it is a job that is pretty hard to balls up. By going back on his promise during the last election he has shown that despite all the rawmations and poetry quoting and the breaking into Irish and the pontification that he goes on with he is still just another cute hoor.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 35,722 CMod ✭✭✭✭pixelburp


    Whether he has done a good or bad job is immaterial to the point I was making, but of course you know that full well.

    With all the advisors, aides, PA's, staff etc it is a job that is pretty hard to balls up. By going back on his promise during the last election he has shown that despite all the rawmations and poetry quoting and the breaking into Irish and the pontification that he goes on with he is still just another cute hoor.


    Dunno what the defensive snark is for tbh; the point you seemed to be making was that "many"only voted for him because he said he'd run a single term - it's not an unreasonable ask to know where you got that stat. Citations do tend to be preferred on this forum. Was that your reasoning for voting for him? Maybe most voted for him because he was the best of a bad batch; let's not forget he was up against the likes of Gay Mitchell and Sean Gallagher.

    Well from what I recall of the 2011 debates, Higgins' age constantly came up as challenge, which IIRC the Pat Kenny TV debate correctly, was where he spoke his decision to run for a single term. As mandates go, it's hardly "build a wall", or "scrap tuition fees" level of failed promises now is it? Be fair. Is he not allowed change his mind, having served his 7 years and figured that hey, there's life in the old dog yet.

    I mean honestly I'm not sure what people exactly WANT from a President - it's a ceremonial role to fly around the world and make happy diplomacy, keep Ireland's presence on the world stage vaguely relevant. It has no executive power, so what else do you do with it?

    I'd rather someone at least eloquent and dignified representing Ireland - hell to be really factitious, his love of poetry and 'harmless pixie grandad' appearnce has generally gone down well - and given the election only ever seemed to be an excuse to remind folks that Dana was still around, I'm not going to pillory a man for changing his mind.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 8,033 ✭✭✭realdanbreen


    pixelburp wrote: »
    Dunno what the defensive snark is for tbh; the point you seemed to be making was that "many"only voted for him because he said he'd run a single term - it's not an unreasonable ask to know where you got that stat. Citations do tend to be preferred on this forum. Was that your reasoning for voting for him? Maybe most voted for him because he was the best of a bad batch; let's not forget he was up against the likes of Gay Mitchell and Sean Gallagher.

    Well from what I recall of the 2011 debates, Higgins' age constantly came up as challenge, which IIRC the Pat Kenny TV debate correctly, was where he spoke his decision to run for a single term. As mandates go, it's hardly "build a wall", or "scrap tuition fees" level of failed promises now is it? Be fair. Is he not allowed change his mind, having served his 7 years and figured that hey, there's life in the old dog yet.

    I mean honestly I'm not sure what people exactly WANT from a President - it's a ceremonial role to fly around the world and make happy diplomacy, keep Ireland's presence on the world stage vaguely relevant. It has no executive power, so what else do you do with it?

    I'd rather someone at least eloquent and dignified representing Ireland - hell to be really factitious, his love of poetry and 'harmless pixie grandad' appearnce has generally gone down well - and given the election only ever seemed to be an excuse to remind folks that Dana was still around, I'm not going to pillory a man for changing his mind.


    Fair enough you're entitled to your opinion of him and I'm glad you accept that he made a false promise. I didn't vote for him( because I have a good memory and remembered his speeches about the USA - at a time when this country was on its knees crying out for investment.) but I know many who did.


  • Registered Users Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


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


  • Registered Users Posts: 23,179 ✭✭✭✭ted1


    pixelburp wrote: »
    Stats on that please: I seriously doubt people en masse voted purely on his decision to run a single term, versus the broadly mediocre to suspect crowd of other candidates. That Sean Gallagher was a serious contender before his gaff about 'brown envelopes' said a lot about the overall standard.

    The status of President has barely any executive power, it's a purely diplomatic, aspirational & ambassadorial role - so in that respect Higgins has done Ireland proud and would be happy for him to continue.

    I never said people voted for him en masse and I never said anything about executive power. He said one term, now he's going again, therefore he lied or is there another word for it?
    People are allowed to change their mind. Especially after experience.


  • Registered Users Posts: 23,179 ✭✭✭✭ted1


    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


  • Registered Users Posts: 28,703 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    Very happy with the job he's doing, best of luck to him


  • Registered Users Posts: 33,650 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato
    Restaurant at the End of the Universe


    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

    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.

    It took a while but I don't mind. How does my body look in this light?



  • Registered Users Posts: 33,650 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato
    Restaurant at the End of the Universe


    Wanderer78 wrote: »
    Very happy with the job he's doing, best of luck to him

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

    It took a while but I don't mind. How does my body look in this light?



  • Registered Users Posts: 28,703 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    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


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,610 ✭✭✭eastwest


    Refer it to the Supreme Court .

    On what basis?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 8,671 ✭✭✭GarIT


    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.


Advertisement