So Michael D IS running again!

imme · 21-08-2018 10:15pm

Carnival, not circus is the only appropriate word to describe what the presidential race can degenerate to.
I think the county council route is past its sell by date if it ever had a value.

It gives county and city councilors an inflated and false opinion of their own abilities and power.
Carnival is all it is.

Annasopra · 21-08-2018 10:25pm

Creol1 wrote: »

On the contrary, it is a well-established fact that the majority of children who see themselves as trans actually come to accept their birth sex in adulthood: http://www.sexologytoday.org/2016/01/do-trans-kids-stay-trans-when-they-grow_99.html.

But the legislation does not make provision for medical professionals to have a role in deciding this. It is the parents and, if the parents object, the courts, who decide. Indeed, the trans movement is arguing that this should not be seen as a medical or psychiatric issue.

Of course there are regrets

To be fair a lot of those 80% desist/detransition have been debunked extensively.

https://medium.com/@juliaserano/detransition-desistance-and-disinformation-a-guide-for-understanding-transgender-children-993b7342946e
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/brynn-tannehill/the-end-of-the-desistance_b_8903690.html?guccounter=1

I don't know what legislation you are talking about? The Gender Recocgnition Act 2015 is not relevant to this discussion because it currently does not provide any legal framework for trans under 16s to legally have their gender identity recocgnised.

This doesnt mean though that trans children are being ignored - currently the HSE is referring them to UK clinicians
https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/transgender-teens-going-to-uk-clinic-for-special-treatment-29527565.html

We are talking about proposals here NOT current legislation

Recommendations
The Chair submitted the Group’s report to the Minister for Employment Affairs and Social Protection on 15 June 2018. The key recommendations of the report are that, in principle;

A: a system of gender recognition be introduced for children subject to the following key principles:

parental consent required
the process to be administrative,
third party support for the child and family involved
a straightforward revocation process to be included

To be fair in reviewing the Act the review group lookes extensively at this in terms of the rights of the child
https://www.welfare.ie/en/downloads/GRA%20Review%20Report.pdf

blackwhite · 21-08-2018 10:43pm

Creol1 wrote: »

1. I was addressing specific points that were made. I quoted these in my post.

2. Gemma O'D has never linked recognition of trans children to paedophilia. A misleading screengrab has been doing the rounds giving this impression. This screengrab doesn't show the post she was actually replying to. It is clear from the actual post that no such connection was ever made.

It’s fairly clear on her twitter feed exactly what she posted.

And funnily enough - despite the dozens of people calling her out for it she dint reply once. Although she finds time to respond to most of the cranks who spout conspiracy theories on her feed.

Almost like she was trying to plant the nasty insidious little seed - but try to give enough deniability when she’d be called out for it.

As I’ve said previously - she’s done some good with a few things she’s exposed i the past - but she’s far too pre-disposed to believe every crackpot conspiracy theory so Ling as its “sticking it to the man”. Kills her credibility and it’s sad to think it’ll all likely end up with herself, Jim Corr and few other whack jobs tilting at windmills and claiming the world is out to get them

gandalf · 21-08-2018 11:23pm

batgoat wrote: »

Gemma O'Doherty is now threatening legal action via dm on twitter against the woman who called her views out. Primarily her view on the hpv vaccine.

https://twitter.com/fionapettit71/status/1031983527456370688

That's not very presidential of her.

Hotblack Desiato · 22-08-2018 12:45am

gandalf wrote: »

That's not very presidential of her.

Depends which president she's trying to emulate!!

yrreg0850 · 22-08-2018 10:25am

imme wrote: »

Carnival, not circus is the only appropriate word to describe what the presidential race can degenerate to.
I think the county council route is past its sell by date if it ever had a value.

It gives county and city councilors an inflated and false opinion of their own abilities and power.
Carnival is all it is.

Councillors in fact have no power and, are controlled from their respective party HQ. Their only function is a stepping stone to a Dail seat.

What is needed is a referrendum to change the system whereby the decision to have a presidential election or not is in the hands of two party leaders.

dulpit · 22-08-2018 10:50am

yrreg0850 wrote: »

Councillors in fact have no power and, are controlled from their respective party HQ. Their only function is a stepping stone to a Dail seat.

What is needed is a referrendum to change the system whereby the decision to have a presidential election or not is in the hands of two party leaders.

Would that not necessarily make it easier for somebody of the high calibre (:rolleyes:) of Gemma O'Doherty to get onto ballot, increasing the circus of the election.

The council route has allowed quite a large number of candidates through over the past 2 elections:

Dana (twice)
Derek Nally
Mary Davis
Sean Gallagher
David Norris

It's a pain, but does seem to allow candidates an element of vetting before getting onto the ballot. From what I've heard a lot of the FF/FG councillors are going to abstain rather than vote against motions in the councils when nominations come up, so there should be a few nominated this time around too.

VinLieger · 22-08-2018 11:29am

dulpit wrote: »

Would that not necessarily make it easier for somebody of the high calibre (:rolleyes:) of Gemma O'Doherty to get onto ballot, increasing the circus of the election.

The council route has allowed quite a large number of candidates through over the past 2 elections:
Dana (twice)

Derek Nally

Mary Davis

Sean Gallagher

David Norris

It's a pain, but does seem to allow candidates an element of vetting before getting onto the ballot. From what I've heard a lot of the FF/FG councillors are going to abstain rather than vote against motions in the councils when nominations come up, so there should be a few nominated this time around too.

Hardly stellar choices there, kinda proves the point about the councillor route making the whole thing a circus

dulpit · 22-08-2018 11:39am

VinLieger wrote: »

Hardly stellar choices there, kinda proves the point about the councillor route making the whole thing a circus

So what's the alternative? Making it just Oireachtas selection will reduce nominees significantly, and if you allow other routes (e.g. a certain number of nominating signatures from the general public) would broaden the circus significantly.

VinLieger · 22-08-2018 11:54am

dulpit wrote: »

So what's the alternative? Making it just Oireachtas selection will reduce nominees significantly, and if you allow other routes (e.g. a certain number of nominating signatures from the general public) would broaden the circus significantly.

Increase the county councils required?

Creol1 · 22-08-2018 12:35pm

yrreg0850 wrote: »

Councillors in fact have no power and, are controlled from their respective party HQ. Their only function is a stepping stone to a Dail seat.

What is needed is a referrendum to change the system whereby the decision to have a presidential election or not is in the hands of two party leaders.

In general, this is correct, but it is for precisely this reason that councils take their role in nominating presidential candidates very seriously. It is one of the few significant powers councils still have.

Party headquarters can impose a whip on their members if they wish, but given the number of councillors and the fact that a lot of them will resist interference on this issue, the two main parties will be reluctant to do so when neither of them is contesting the presidential election and the evidence so far is that the HQs of FF and FG will be taking a more hands-off approach.

eastwest · 22-08-2018 12:50pm

Creol1 wrote: »

In general, this is correct, but it is for precisely this reason that councils take their role in nominating presidential candidates very seriously. It is one of the few significant powers councils still have.

Party headquarters can impose a whip on their members if they wish, but given the number of councillors and the fact that a lot of them will resist interference on this issue, the two main parties will be reluctant to do so when neither of them is contesting the presidential election and the evidence so far is that the HQs of FF and FG will be taking a more hands-off approach.

It suits FF to allow councillors to unofficially back Gallagher, who can be claimed as their man if he wins. In the meantime they can be seen to back Michael D in the event that he retains the job.

James Brown · 22-08-2018 2:49pm

Gallagher would be an embarrassment. We don't need another mouthpiece with little substance more concerned about selfies and his own image on the world stage.

VinLieger · 22-08-2018 3:04pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Gallagher would be an embarrassment. We don't need another mouthpiece with little substance more concerned about selfies and his own image on the world stage.

Youve just described every other candidate that has declared so far

nuac · 22-08-2018 3:19pm

[QUOTE=yrreg0850;107859370]Councillors in fact have no power and, are controlled from their respective party HQ. Their only function is a stepping stone to a Dail seat.

What is needed is a referrendum to change the system whereby the decision to have a presidential election or not is in the hands of two party leaders.[/QUOTE]

Many councillors are not controlled by their own party HQs - nor should they be.

James Brown · 22-08-2018 4:41pm

VinLieger wrote: »

Youve just described every other candidate that has declared so far

Except Michael D.

Drifter50 · 23-08-2018 8:21am

VinLieger wrote: »

So gemma has admitted her goal is to initiate a constitutional crisis

https://twitter.com/oconnellhugh/status/1031853176432087040

Thats just pathetic, she does`nt deserve any serious thought on this

Pity we can`t produce a candidate like the current President of Croatia - Kolinda Grabar Kitarovic. Youthful, vibrant, attractive, portrays herself and the country as go ahead, happy to be representing the country and doing a great job. Background in government so knows the story from that side of the fence

eastwest · 23-08-2018 9:26am

Drifter50 wrote: »

Thats just pathetic, she does`nt deserve any serious thought on this

Pity we can`t produce a candidate like the current President of Croatia - Kolinda Grabar Kitarovic. Youthful, vibrant, attractive, portrays herself and the country as go ahead, happy to be representing the country and doing a great job. Background in government so knows the story from that side of the fence

Our system doesn't really encourage people like that to come through.

Water John · 23-08-2018 11:59am

Well, the 2 previous incumbents largely fitted that profile when elected.

Annasopra · 23-08-2018 12:10pm

Drifter50 wrote: »

Thats just pathetic, she does`nt deserve any serious thought on this

Pity we can`t produce a candidate like the current President of Croatia - Kolinda Grabar Kitarovic. Youthful, vibrant, attractive, portrays herself and the country as go ahead, happy to be representing the country and doing a great job. Background in government so knows the story from that side of the fence

The countey decided no on that. Under our current rules she would have to wait 8 years

Jim2007 · 23-08-2018 1:45pm

makeorbrake wrote: »

Furthermore, who has said that they won't sign bills into law?

End of storey and now best ignored.

CrabRevolution · 23-08-2018 2:03pm

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

The countey decided no on that. Under our current rules she would have to wait 8 years

I take it you're referring to the age limits? The only way she'd have to wait 8 years is if she's 27. According to wikipedia she's 50, and was elected at the age of 46.

I could easily be getting the wrong end of the stick here, but how would she be prevented from being elected President here?

Creol1 · 23-08-2018 2:07pm

Jim2007 wrote: »

End of storey and now best ignored.

She prefaced those comments on the radio by saying she was not a constitutional lawyer and would seek advice from those who were.

batgoat · 23-08-2018 2:29pm

Creol1 wrote: »

She prefaced those comments on the radio by saying she was not a constitutional lawyer and would seek advice from those who were.

She's also threatened half of twitter with defamation for discussing her views....

VinLieger · 23-08-2018 2:38pm

Creol1 wrote: »

She prefaced those comments on the radio by saying she was not a constitutional lawyer and would seek advice from those who were.

You dont need a law degree to read the articles of the constitution to understand what she is claiming is not possible, also it might be a good idea before declaring you want a job to read the description of what its about?

So far some well known names of people supporting her are, John Connors, Cora Sherlock, Fidelma Healy Eames, Jim Corr and Ronan Mullen.

People need to look beyond the populist corruption angle she is peddling and see who she is being backed by and understand she is entirely the wrong person to be handing the aras to.

optogirl · 23-08-2018 3:10pm

VinLieger wrote: »

You dont need a law degree to read the articles of the constitution to understand what she is claiming is not possible, also it might be a good idea before declaring you want a job to read the description of what its about?

So far some well known names of people supporting her are, John Connors, Cora Sherlock, Fidelma Healy Eames, Jim Corr and Ronan Mullen.

People need to look beyond the populist corruption angle she is peddling and see who she is being backed by and understand she is entirely the wrong person to be handing the aras to.

The stuff of nightmares

Water John · 23-08-2018 3:46pm

Where's Mattie McGrath's name?

blanch152 · 23-08-2018 4:24pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Gallagher would be an embarrassment. We don't need another mouthpiece with little substance more concerned about selfies and his own image on the world stage.

I agree, the only difference between him and Michael D. would be their height.

Itssoeasy · 23-08-2018 5:57pm

Creol1 wrote: »

She prefaced those comments on the radio by saying she was not a constitutional lawyer and would seek advice from those who were.

She doesn't need to be one in order to read what the constitution says. I'd never heard of her until she said she was looking for a nomination to run for president. But surely knowing the powers of the office you are looking to hold should be a fairly important.

James Brown · 23-08-2018 6:03pm

blanch152 wrote: »

I agree, the only difference between him and Michael D. would be their height.

You seriously think Gallagher and Michael D. are the same? Bizarre. How so?

Itssoeasy · 23-08-2018 6:04pm

VinLieger wrote: »

You dont need a law degree to read the articles of the constitution to understand what she is claiming is not possible, also it might be a good idea before declaring you want a job to read the description of what its about?

So far some well known names of people supporting her are, John Connors, Cora Sherlock, Fidelma Healy Eames, Jim Corr and Ronan Mullen.

People need to look beyond the populist corruption angle she is peddling and see who she is being backed by and understand she is entirely the wrong person to be handing the aras to.

Good god if you get them in a lucky bag, you'd ask for another one.

blanch152 · 23-08-2018 6:08pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

You seriously think Gallagher and Michael D. are the same? Bizarre. How so?

Well, I took my cue from your post, and was only agreeing with you:

Matt Barrett wrote: »

We don't need another mouthpiece with little substance more concerned about selfies and his own image on the world stage.

I think Michael D. with his nonsensical poetic ramblings and paeans to Fidel Castro fits the picture you were creating.

James Brown · 23-08-2018 6:18pm

blanch152 wrote: »

Well, I took my cue from your post, and was only agreeing with you:

I think Michael D. with his nonsensical poetic ramblings and paeans to Fidel Castro fits the picture you were creating.

A cheesy reality TV show, denying affiliation with FF chancer who wanted to turn the Aras into a tourist trap compared to a dignified, well spoken, proven ambassador? I don't think so.

jmcc · 23-08-2018 6:43pm

Seems that RTE are reporting that Gallagher will attend Meath county council with other candidates on Monday. No official announcement. It will be very entertaining if there's a rematch.

https://www.rte.ie/news/politics/2018/0823/987108-sean-gallagher-presidential-election/

Regards...jmcc

blanch152 · 23-08-2018 9:40pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

A cheesy reality TV show, denying affiliation with FF chancer who wanted to turn the Aras into a tourist trap compared to a dignified, well spoken, proven ambassador? I don't think so.

Hold on, you are moving the goalposts. You never said anything about reality TV shows or affiliation with FF.

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Gallagher would be an embarrassment. We don't need another mouthpiece with little substance more concerned about selfies and his own image on the world stage.

You said "another mouthpiece with little substance more concerned about selfies and his own image on the world stage". I gave the example of Higgins on Fidel Castro and his poetic ramblings.

I could have added the scandals of his expensive hotel stays while President or his association with the near-defunct Labour Party. I could have given another example of him trash-talking on some chat radio show, but I didn't, because you only said what you said. I could have referenced his pathetic performance as Minister.

Gallagher has his faults, but Higgins is not that different.

jm08 · 23-08-2018 9:51pm

blanch152 wrote: »

Hold on, you are moving the goalposts. You never said anything about reality TV shows or affiliation with FF.

You said "another mouthpiece with little substance more concerned about selfies and his own image on the world stage". I gave the example of Higgins on Fidel Castro and his poetic ramblings.

I could have added the scandals of his expensive hotel stays while President or his association with the near-defunct Labour Party. I could have given another example of him trash-talking on some chat radio show, but I didn't, because you only said what you said. I could have referenced his pathetic performance as Minister.

Gallagher has his faults, but Higgins is not that different.

Blanch, you're a Green are you not? Stones and glasshouses come to mind here! Is Eamon Ryan going to throw his hat in the ring again, or can't the Greens afford to run a candidate?

Beechwoodspark · 23-08-2018 9:54pm

Don’t like Sean g or his background but just on age grounds alone I can see him being more popular than the incumbent.

Hurrache · 23-08-2018 10:23pm

People don't vote based on age.

jmcc · 23-08-2018 10:31pm

Hurrache wrote: »

People don't vote based on age.

Higgins' age combined with his pledge to do only one term will both be factors in how people vote. A younger candidate may gain more votes. In the 2011 coverage, one of Higgins' hands had a very serious tremor and the camera coverage tried to keep away from showing direct shots. Higgins now keeps his hands folded on-camera. That kind of thing will be picked up, consciously or unconsciously by voters.

Regards...jmcc

Hurrache · 23-08-2018 10:35pm

He was as many years younger than Huggins last time around as he is now and it was of no advantage.

jmcc · 23-08-2018 10:45pm

Hurrache wrote: »

He was as many years younger than Huggins last time around as he is now and it was of no advantage.

Gallagher was leading in all the polls right up to the Frontline using that fake tweet. It was about 40% for Gallagher to 25% for Higgins and Higgins was losing support in the opinion polls as they came closer to the election. Without the Frontline show using that fake tweet, we'd probably be arguing about a second term for Gallagher now.

This is also not 2011. Back then, Labour had 37 TDs. Now it has only 7. It also had strong representation at a local council level. In 2014, it was almost demolished at a national level and has only 50 council seats. FF is the largest party at local level followed by FG and then SF. This local, grassroots element is the organisation that does the canvassing for parties. Without a strong grassroots operation, Higgins will be almost completely dependent on FG and FF canvassers. Now if Gallagher gets into the race, some of those are more likely to canvass for Gallagher and FF is no longer as toxic as it was in 2011. The Higgins election looks like an electoral abnormality because it was dependent of the fake tweet. The voters will be paying a lot of more attention to the candidates this time around and any flaw on any candidate is going to be exploited. Higgins' age is a major factor and there's going to be a callous implication that people are voting for a day off when they are voting for Higgins. It won't be said that people are voting for a candidate who, statistically, ( https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/er/ilt/irishlifetablesno162010-2012/ ) may die in office but it will be implied.

Regards...jmcc

batgoat · 23-08-2018 10:54pm

jmcc wrote: »

Higgins' age combined with his pledge to do only one term will both be factors in how people vote. A younger candidate may gain more votes. In the 2011 coverage, one of Higgins' hands had a very serious tremor and the camera coverage tried to keep away from showing direct shots. Higgins now keeps his hands folded on-camera. That kind of thing will be picked up, consciously or unconsciously by voters.

Regards...jmcc

The reality is that he seemed to work comfortably for seven years. Much of the rationale on why he likely expected only one term was because he had some health problems at time. However he presently seems to be in very good health. He's also got a pretty large amount of the younger demographic that like him. Gallagh or Duffy are personally far less appealing because they have more in common with the likes of Trump, no political experience and are using the role for their ego more than anything else.

jmcc · 23-08-2018 10:59pm

batgoat wrote: »

The reality is that he seemed to work comfortably for seven years. Much of the rationale on why he likely expected only one term was because he had some health problems at time.

Doesn't matter. People will see an old man and younger candidates. The health issue will be brought up and it will damage Higgins' campaign.

The pledge to do one term -- a central element of his 2011 campaign -- is going to be used against him.

Regards...jmcc

jm08 · 23-08-2018 11:21pm

It wasn't the tweet that undid Gallagher, it was his inability to distance himself from Fianna Fail who were pretty toxic at the time. Worth looking at that infamous debate again. It was Martin McGuinness who said that he had been talking to a business man from Louth (known to have criminal connections) who claimed that Gallagher had collected a cheque from him for €5K (which seemingly was for Fianna Fail and Gallagher claimed to know nothing about).

jmcc · 23-08-2018 11:24pm

jm08 wrote: »

It wasn't the tweet that undid Gallagher, it was his inability to distance himself from Fianna Fail who were pretty toxic at the time.

No. It was the fake tweet. And when he used the word "envelope", his campaign was over. It is that simple. Without the fake tweet, he probably would have gone on to win.

Regards...jmcc

blanch152 · 23-08-2018 11:30pm

jm08 wrote: »

Blanch, you're a Green are you not? Stones and glasshouses come to mind here! Is Eamon Ryan going to throw his hat in the ring again, or can't the Greens afford to run a candidate?

Touche

However, I vote Green, but I'm not a Green.

jm08 · 24-08-2018 12:55am

jmcc wrote: »

No. It was the fake tweet. And when he used the word "envelope", his campaign was over. It is that simple. Without the fake tweet, he probably would have gone on to win.

Regards...jmcc

Have a look at this section of the debate on RTE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUhFdi7iRL0 .

This video is an interview with Gallagher about winning his case with RTE.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGcNMIRlKq8

His argument was that he received unfair treatment by RTE in how he was questioned.

realdanbreen · 24-08-2018 8:35am

jm08 wrote: »

. It was Martin McGuinness who said that he had been talking to a business man from Louth (known to have criminal connections).

Ah here, that's stretching it a bit, Martin speaking to a man from Louth with criminal connections!
And the gas part is Gallagher got hammered because he mentioned the word 'envelope' just shows what a discerning electorate is out there.

Beechwoodspark · 24-08-2018 8:46am

Hurrache wrote: »

People don't vote based on age.

Agree - there’s a sense that Mickey d stole/got very lucky the last election due to the front line shenanigans.

So right from the get go Mickey d was on thin ice and instead of accepting that, he arrogantly p1ssed off huge sections of the population (won’t list them out here-see my other posts for examples).

Then of course his 1 term promise which he has broken And the way he tried to desperately avoid an election at all cost so that he could sneak back in for another 7 years.

Well-it’s all coming back to bite him now....

jm08 · 24-08-2018 9:26am

realdanbreen wrote: »

Ah here, that's stretching it a bit, Martin speaking to a man from Louth with criminal connections!
And the gas part is Gallagher got hammered because he mentioned the word 'envelope' just shows what a discerning electorate is out there.

Gallagher got hammered because he was hiding his closeness to Fianna Fail (whom the country was very angry with back then) and he was collecting cheques in envelopes for £5K from this dodgy businessman which he claimed was for Fianna Fail two years previously when the country was on its knees, put there by inept Fianna Fail politicians who put the party before the people.

And you are blaming the electorate for not being happy about that?

So Michael D IS running again!

Comments