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
The Pat Kenny Show
Options
Comments
-
Narcissism?
Maybe.
I actually think it may be more that he is concerned that he will be prosecuted once out of office, or that someone does indeed have something on him and their 'deal' was that he would get A, B, C done and he hasn't yet managed to do so.
Can only imagine what the next four years will be like if he gets back in. Executive Orders all over the place I expect.0 -
drunkmonkey wrote: »Winners are usually don't like loosing. I don't think he's Terrified of bunker Joe just hugely frustrated with what's happening over there.
I don't believe Biden has a hope in hell of being president, Trump will run circles around him once the debates start. Bidens whole strategy is just say nothing, polls are telling him it's the right move, we all know what the polls said the last time.
Anyone who has his track record in business could not claim to be a 'winner' by any stretch of the imagination.0 -
EmmetSpiceland wrote: »As I right in thinking that the Speaker of the House “assumes” the role of President if the US elections don’t take place in November?
I'm not sure, but it's not going to happening. This is him getting his excuses in first. It will all be down to voter fraud robbing him of the presidency. His twitter will be in overdrive.0 -
Tell me how wrote: »Anyone who has his track record in business could not claim to be a 'winner' by any stretch of the imagination.
Anyone in business has ups and downs, not something you can hold against him. Ivan Yates is a loser going by that logic.
He beat the woman you all thought would walk it but he's a loser ya..0 -
Just reading an interesting take on that. It wouldn't be the Speaker of the House as she is up for election as well (like the rest of the house). It might instead be the president pro-tempore of the Senate, who would probably be a democrat given the way the numbers up for re-election this year are, which could be one reason why the GOP is not enthusiastic about Trump's idea :pac:EmmetSpiceland wrote: »As I right in thinking that the Speaker of the House “assumes” the role of President if the US elections don’t take place in November?0 -
Advertisement
-
drunkmonkey wrote: »....
Newstalk is getting beyond lame at the stage with every host bar Ciara making it a daily part of their show.
Ciara is the worst part of Newstalk IMO. She’s a Joe Duffy would be - her whole show is misery - i hate it but have newstalk on at work so have to suffer her.0 -
Bankruptcy 1: 'Tough luck, you live and learn'drunkmonkey wrote: »Anyone in business has ups and downs, not something you can hold against him. Ivan Yates is a loser going by that logic.
Bankruptcy 2: 'Ouch, Lighting does strike twice apparently'
Bankruptcy 3: 'Did you break a mirror or something'
Bankruptcy 4: 'Hmmm, what's the common denominator'
Bankruptcy 5: 'Are you doing this on purpose'
Bankruptcy 6: 'I don't know what to call you, but it definitely isn't a winner'0 -
This is a sensible summary of the interview.He did say Trump will leave, but the reason he gave for Trump not saying he would is "there is no confidence in the mail voting system and there is a lots of evidence of fraud". The same reason Trump gave yesterday for postponing the election, but there is no evidence at all to back this up.
It wasn't just some Democrats who couldn't accept the 2016 election. Trump claimed millions of people voting illegally cost him the popular vote. He will leave when/if he loses, but he won't accept the result.
As an aside, I was talking to an American yesterday and I was going on about how primitive the voting infrastructure is in America, how it's all managed by individual states which gives rise to huge inconsistency and they should modernise their voting system instead of messing about with postal voting.
Her answer was something I hadn't considered— the seemingjy chaotic way elections are run in the States has a clear benefit. If you want to tamper with the voting process, you have to tamper with thousands of voting centres, all of which run their operations in slightly different ways. Very clever, even if more by accident than design.0 -
Tell me how wrote: »Bankruptcy 1: 'Tough luck, you live and learn'
Bankruptcy 2: 'Ouch, Lighting does strike twice apparently'
Bankruptcy 3: 'Did you break a mirror or something'
Bankruptcy 4: 'Hmmm, what's the common denominator'
Bankruptcy 5: 'Are you doing this on purpose'
Bankruptcy 6: 'I don't know what to call you, but it definitely isn't a winner'
Man of straw argument. If every one was barred from office, or gave up after being bankrupt. Few entrepreneurs, no business, and a lot less politicians. From Sean Quinn, Ivan Yeats, Mick Wallace, Bill Cullen and so on. Even George Hook formally of Newstalk. Bobby Kerr also said he nearly went bust a few times.
Also bankruptcy itself can be strategic and have benefits
https://www.anthonyjoyce.ie/bankruptcy-in-ireland/
https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/eb028343/full/html?skipTracking=true
Just because you do not like Trump's behaviour or his policies. Does not mean you cannot appreciate how he managed to win the POTUS. Over 300 million people and only 45 POTUS in history.
No matter how you cut it, that IS winning.
And this against all the odds despite constant sneering, and guffawing against him.
He played his own game well and won. Might not be flowery or even pretty. But it was as effective as Big Jack 88-94. Got results, disorientated the opponent and 'put em under pressure'.
Whether he is a good president is another matter. But you are not alone in the anti-Trump hysteria - you need only listen to PK's show for that.Guff about stuff, and stuff about guff.
0 -
Tell me how wrote: »Occasional disagreement with views, style is fine. Makes discussion more interesting even.
It's when that becomes incessant posting about how bad someone is, how wrong they are on everything etc etc it raises the question of, 'Why then listen'?
I'd be fine even with someone consistently disagreeing with the position of a presenter and discussing that rationally but when it just extends as far as 'He/She is so terrible I don't know why you'd even bother going on the show' and nothing else about the topic that it is annoying. Some threads were/are consistently with pretty much nothing with negative views, about shows that have very high listenership.
Certainly annoying when reading it on thread after thread, day after day.
You ask the question “why then listen?”; equally couldn’t the question be asked “why visit these threads if they annoy you so much?”.0 -
Advertisement
-
ButtersSuki wrote: »You ask the question “why then listen?”; equally couldn’t the question be asked “why visit these threads if they annoy you so much?”.
This forum has a central rule that positive and critical reviews are welcome. So I disagree with TMH in his frustration at critical opinions, because this Forum should never turn into a fan page for broadcasters.
Having said that, it is natural that radio listeners will query the barrage of wild abuse, or praise, that a programme receives. You would sometimes wonder about the appeal of a programme that people hate, but so be it.0 -
gormdubhgorm wrote: »Man of straw argument. If every one was barred from office, or gave up after being bankrupt. Few entrepreneurs, no business, and a lot less politicians. From Sean Quinn, Ivan Yeats, Mick Wallace, Bill Cullen and so on. Even George Hook formally of Newstalk. Bobby Kerr also said he nearly went bust a few times.
Also bankruptcy itself can be strategic and have benefits
https://www.anthonyjoyce.ie/bankruptcy-in-ireland/
https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/eb028343/full/html?skipTracking=true
Just because you do not like Trump's behaviour or his policies. Does not mean you cannot appreciate how he managed to win the POTUS. Over 300 million people and only 45 POTUS in history.
No matter how you cut it, that IS winning.
And this against all the odds despite constant sneering, and guffawing against him.
He played his own game well and won. Might not be flowery or even pretty. But it was as effective as Big Jack 88-94. Got results, disorientated the opponent and 'put em under pressure'.
Whether he is a good president is another matter. But you are not alone in the anti-Trump hysteria - you need only listen to PK's show for that.
I don't know anyone who doesn't generally use and interpret the use of the accolade 'winner' as implying that someone is inherently successful. Or at least that they have a track record of such. Neither of these is applicable to Trump.
I do not have any problem in acknowledging that Trump won the 2016 Presidential election, many people who do not rate him at all have no problem acknowledging it. But his behaviour, his Presidency and he himself are very interesting to observe and discuss. And doing so on a current affairs show is far from hysteria. It is 100% relevant and topical given what he is currently doing and what is going on in the world.
The Pro-Trumpers are going to have to own his ridiculousness as much as they cheered his victory.0 -
Regardless of the different points of view/arguments, it was truly beautiful hearing the spokeswoman for the hospital consultants verbally slap Healy this morning...he's unbearable.
If Healy had any balls, he would have slapped her back down from her high horse.
He had every right to ask about consultants resistance to change and to giving up their private practices.
He should have torn into her propaganda nonsense instead of bowing down to her, like a ( don't use hurtful slurs — Mod)0 -
If Healy had any balls, he would have slapped her back down from her high horse.
He had every right to ask about consultants resistance to change and to giving up their private practices.
He should have torn into her propaganda nonsense instead of bowing down to her, like a ( don't use hurtful slurs — Mod)
Obviously he didn't have his facts so he couldn't, as you put it, "slapped her back down". Insufficiently prepared IMO0 -
Tell me how wrote: »I don't know anyone who doesn't generally use and interpret the use of the accolade 'winner' as implying that someone is inherently successful. Or at least that they have a track record of such. Neither of these is applicable to Trump.
I do not have any problem in acknowledging that Trump won the 2016 Presidential election, many people who do not rate him at all have no problem acknowledging it. But his behaviour, his Presidency and he himself are very interesting to observe and discuss. And doing so on a current affairs show is far from hysteria. It is 100% relevant and topical given what he is currently doing and what is going on in the world.
The Pro-Trumpers are going to have to own his ridiculousness as much as they cheered his victory.
Fair enough with the Covid19 but long before that there was silly griping about Trump from the Irish media. No balance to it. USA is a different culture to Ireland for a start. As for the winner thing. It is in Trump's make up he wants to be top dog alpha male.
If being POTUS is not being a winner in life and Alpha Male I don't know what is. A long way from when Obama was having a go at him about Meatloaf on The Apprentice and Omaha Steaks. Making tough choices etc.Guff about stuff, and stuff about guff.
0 -
gormdubhgorm wrote: »If being POTUS is not being a winner in life and Alpha Male I don't know what is. A long way from when Obama was having a go at him about Meatloaf on The Apprentice and Omaha Steaks. Making tough choices etc.
Look at it this way.
Say you consider where you work, or a sports or community organisation which you are involved with, or your childrens school, or the neighbourhood in which you live or wherever. Any collective of people which share a common space or environment.
And a new leader needs to be appointed to lead this group (again, think of this for any group such as those highlighted above). Now, you can nominate anyone, to hypothetically lead this group but you have to consider the skill set, or likely behaviours and manners which they would bring to it as evidenced by their previous behaviour in whatever way you know them.
Now, what type of grouping or collective would be one which you would identify Donald Trump as being your preferred choice to lead it. Could you see someone with his manner being a good influence on staff in a company? Could you see him making positive choices for a school? Could you see him successfully managing a business so that it remained profitable? Could you see him positively motivating a sporting organisation to be successful? Could you see him appealing to the majority of people in any of these groups to row in behind his vision? Because, for me, the answer is no to all of them.
He doesn't have empathy, diplomacy, intelligence, intuition, business savvy or the motivation skills anywhere close to a sufficient level to make others of a significant volume follow him which would indicate the majority within any of the groups above do so and as such, couldn't possibly be considered a winner. The only area this could be challenged I expect is his business savvy, given that that is what he is, a business man. But one who has had 6 business declare bankruptcy (including a casino!!) and has seen multiple other businesses fail also.
He won the US election in 2016, but, was it because people saw him as the 'winner' type character they wanted, or because they were just not motivated to vote for Hillary? I'm not even saying it was definitively the latter, but I suspect a significant element felt that he wouldn't win, but that they were eager to give Hillary a shock anyway and so it this protest vote element got him over the line. Maybe I am wrong, I am living in the US at the moment and there are no shortage of republicans but, what I have noticed amongst those I have spoken to is that their hatred for anything Democrat far outweighs their admiration for anything about Trump.
Politics here is in a big mess at the moment and needs a viable alternative to not have such basic partisan polarised views. There was a rumour of a GOP party being formed some years ago, even that would be a step forward as then one group would probably eventually attract more moderate views and those motivated purely to vote so as the other crowd don't win, might no longer feel it is a reasonable tactic. But, I know people look at multi party politics also and say they never reach any meaningful consensus, so who actually really knows.
Trump will be referred to as President Trump for the rest of his life, (irrespective of what happens in November) and you are absolutely correct he is unique in having become one of only 45 to have done so, but, I would bet that the amount of times people actually call him for advice, will be pretty limited outside of his direct family. I have no doubt people want to use his influence in some cases, but there aren't too many of them reciting 'Oh captain, my captain'. when they think of him.
To paraphrase Tywin Lannister, 'Any man who must say, "I am an alpha male", is no true alpha male'.0 -
Eoghan Corry on the radio (yet again) offering his 'expertise' on Covid19 and travel. I'm going to switch off the next time I hear him on any radio show.0
-
Healy in for Pat again today. I, honestly, don’t get the hatred for him on here.
What’s the “deal”? Is it that he’s a liberal, woke, “soy boy” cuck? Doesn’t hate enough?
I just don’t see it. I enjoy when he’s on the show.“It is not blood that makes you Irish but a willingness to be part of the Irish nation” - Thomas Davis
0 -
Oh, he’s talking about “incels” with an author. Won’t go down well in here.
“It is not blood that makes you Irish but a willingness to be part of the Irish nation” - Thomas Davis
0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Anyone else think Healy could be a good replacement for Moncrieff, when the time comes?
“It is not blood that makes you Irish but a willingness to be part of the Irish nation” - Thomas Davis
0 -
EmmetSpiceland wrote: »Anyone else think Healy could be a good replacement for Moncrieff, when the time comes?
Have never been a fan of his, Emmet, still not convinced that he can carry an entire programme. But am listening to him speaking with a rape victim, talking about topics like consent, shame, and publicity with real sensitivity. For a guy who's only filling-in, he's doing a really wonderful job.0 -
Tell me how wrote: »Look at it this way.
Say you consider where you work, or a sports or community organisation which you are involved with, or your childrens school, or the neighbourhood in which you live or wherever. Any collective of people which share a common space or environment.
And a new leader needs to be appointed to lead this group (again, think of this for any group such as those highlighted above). Now, you can nominate anyone, to hypothetically lead this group but you have to consider the skill set, or likely behaviours and manners which they would bring to it as evidenced by their previous behaviour in whatever way you know them.
Now, what type of grouping or collective would be one which you would identify Donald Trump as being your preferred choice to lead it. Could you see someone with his manner being a good influence on staff in a company? Could you see him making positive choices for a school? Could you see him successfully managing a business so that it remained profitable? Could you see him positively motivating a sporting organisation to be successful? Could you see him appealing to the majority of people in any of these groups to row in behind his vision? Because, for me, the answer is no to all of them.
He doesn't have empathy, diplomacy, intelligence, intuition, business savvy or the motivation skills anywhere close to a sufficient level to make others of a significant volume follow him which would indicate the majority within any of the groups above do so and as such, couldn't possibly be considered a winner. The only area this could be challenged I expect is his business savvy, given that that is what he is, a business man. But one who has had 6 business declare bankruptcy (including a casino!!) and has seen multiple other businesses fail also.
He won the US election in 2016, but, was it because people saw him as the 'winner' type character they wanted, or because they were just not motivated to vote for Hillary? I'm not even saying it was definitively the latter, but I suspect a significant element felt that he wouldn't win, but that they were eager to give Hillary a shock anyway and so it this protest vote element got him over the line. Maybe I am wrong, I am living in the US at the moment and there are no shortage of republicans but, what I have noticed amongst those I have spoken to is that their hatred for anything Democrat far outweighs their admiration for anything about Trump.
Politics here is in a big mess at the moment and needs a viable alternative to not have such basic partisan polarised views. There was a rumour of a GOP party being formed some years ago, even that would be a step forward as then one group would probably eventually attract more moderate views and those motivated purely to vote so as the other crowd don't win, might no longer feel it is a reasonable tactic. But, I know people look at multi party politics also and say they never reach any meaningful consensus, so who actually really knows.
Trump will be referred to as President Trump for the rest of his life, (irrespective of what happens in November) and you are absolutely correct he is unique in having become one of only 45 to have done so, but, I would bet that the amount of times people actually call him for advice, will be pretty limited outside of his direct family. I have no doubt people want to use his influence in some cases, but there aren't too many of them reciting 'Oh captain, my captain'. when they think of him.
To paraphrase Tywin Lannister, 'Any man who must say, "I am an alpha male", is no true alpha male'.
He is a figurehead. He delegates. That is what people like you and Pat cannot understand. It is not like being the chairman of a community centre. He sells a message. I understand is a flawed man and unable to admit he is wrong. But he does have intangible skills without which he never would have reached so high in the first place.Guff about stuff, and stuff about guff.
0 -
gormdubhgorm wrote: »He is a figurehead. He delegates. That is what people like you and Pat cannot understand. It is not like being the chairman of a community centre. He sells a message. I understand is a flawed man and unable to admit he is wrong. But he does have intangible skills without which he never would have reached so high in the first place.
Sure.
He still isn't a 'winner'.
P.S. If Trump truly was a delegater, he'd have stepped to the side much much more during the Covid press conferences and let Fauchi and Brix take the lead, with him expressing confidence in them and faith that the American people would do what needed to be done to prevent Covid becoming much more than it might have been. He didn't/couldn't.0 -
Tell me how wrote: »Sure.
He still isn't a 'winner'.
P.S. If Trump truly was a delegater, he'd have stepped to the side much much more during the Covid press conferences and let Fauchi and Brix take the lead, with him expressing confidence in them and faith that the American people would do what needed to be done to prevent Covid becoming much more than it might have been. He didn't/couldn't.
You only say he is not a winner because you do not like his polices and the man himself. Stand back from it objectively. As for the Covid19 - agreed not handled well. But the same could be said for many countries. Boris for instance (shaking hands) and that Brazilian leader. Unprecedented times, people react differently in a crisis.Guff about stuff, and stuff about guff.
0 -
gormdubhgorm wrote: »He is a figurehead. He delegates. That is what people like you and Pat cannot understand. It is not like being the chairman of a community centre. He sells a message. I understand is a flawed man and unable to admit he is wrong. But he does have intangible skills without which he never would have reached so high in the first place.
I think that was the “plan” during his election. It was expected that his “back room” staff, and those in positions of power, would coral him in and keep him from doing anything of note. Let him go in front of the cameras and be the face of the leadership.
From day 1 he has gone his own way and pushed for the things he wants. I don’t think he delegates too much, he gives orders and wants them followed. No one else is calling “the shots”, anyone who gets in the way is dismissed.
The turnover of his staff is the evidence of this. Not sure I’d consider Donald Trump one of life’s “losers” either way.“It is not blood that makes you Irish but a willingness to be part of the Irish nation” - Thomas Davis
0 -
gormdubhgorm wrote: »You only say he is not a winner because you do not like his polices and the man himself. Stand back from it objectively. As for the Covid19 - agreed not handled well. But the same could be said for many countries. Boris for instance (shaking hands) and that Brazilian leader. Unprecedented times, people react differently in a crisis.
No, Read my last few posts on this matter. I have gone to some detail to explain why it is I don't rate him as a 'winner' and it has nothing to do with me simply deciding that because I don't like him.
He has demonstrably been a poor manager, a poor motivator, a poor decision maker and a divisive presence throughout his career while also managing to build his brand somewhat. I say somewhat because I suspect there are a lot of smoke and mirrors going on there.
And I thought this long before Covid but as you mentioned it, comparing his behaviour with that of two other politicians of dubious standing whose populace are feeling the effects of their ineptitude is hardly a ringing endorsement is it?0 -
Tell me how wrote: »No, Read my last few posts on this matter. I have gone to some detail to explain why it is I don't rate him as a 'winner' and it has nothing to do with me simply deciding that because I don't like him.
He has demonstrably been a poor manager, a poor motivator, a poor decision maker and a divisive presence throughout his career while also managing to build his brand somewhat. I say somewhat because I suspect there are a lot of smoke and mirrors going on there.
And I thought this long before Covid but as you mentioned it, comparing his behaviour with that of two other politicians of dubious standing whose populace are feeling the effects of their ineptitude is hardly a ringing endorsement is it?
I think you are confusing performance in office against high level career advancement. Look at Radio in general. It could be argued that Pat Kenny is a good intellectual broadcaster. But yet it is a sphere where Ray Darcy (not intellectual) can excel in broadcasting. Both have hit top of the tree in the same medium with differing styles. But both have about the same levels of monetary reward - and profile in thier field.Guff about stuff, and stuff about guff.
0 -
gormdubhgorm wrote: »I think you are confusing performance in office to high level career advancement. Look at Radio in general. It could be argued that Pat Kenny is a good intellectual broadcaster. But yet it is a sphere where Ray Darcy (not intellectual) can excel in broadcasting. Both have hit top of the tree in the same medium with differing styles. But both have about the same levels of monetary reward - and profile in thier field.
This just proves my point.
If someone asked you to give an example of a respected broadcaster who most people viewed as being very competent in their role and successful at it, i.e. a 'winner', many would mention Pat but few would nominate Ray, even though as you say they are both comparable in terms of role and reward.
By the same definition, just because Trump has achieved the office of President, doesn't automatically mean that he is a 'winner' which is what was the start of this discussion.
Similarly, his business performance (several failures, 6 bankruptcies) also isn't of a level that suggests 'winner'.0 -
Advertisement
-
Tell me how wrote: »This just proves my point.
If someone asked you to give an example of a respected broadcaster who most people viewed as being very competent in their role and successful at it, i.e. a 'winner', many would mention Pat but few would nominate Ray, even though as you say they are both comparable in terms of role and reward.
By the same definition, just because Trump has achieved the office of President, doesn't automatically mean that he is a 'winner' which is what was the start of this discussion.
Similarly, his business performance (several failures, 6 bankruptcies) also isn't of a level that suggests 'winner'.
You are making no sense (it disproves your point Darcy is a winner just not your 'type' of winner). Same as Trump. He cannot go higher Than his choosen field. Anyway, you seem to have your mind made up so there is no point in me labouring the point. You are already back full circle to bankruptcy, I dealt with that point previously.Guff about stuff, and stuff about guff.
0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement