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!

12467186

Comments

  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 35,726 CMod ✭✭✭✭pixelburp


    It's gas the way you mods all gather round to support one another and high five:D BTW I've heard of a 'flock of geese' or a 'herd of cattle', what's a bunch of Mods called?

    Ah, ok, so you don't actually want to debate in the debating thread you started, or back up any claims made; just make pops at folks from the sidelines & vague snark about polls being wrong 'cos bookies paid out on Hillary. Fair enough.

    So to anyone else: have there been any polls taken over the prospect of an election? I take it not, given Higgins vacillated over running again? I guess it we're heading to an uncontested reelection, haven't heard of any serious candidate throwing their hat in.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,182 ✭✭✭bobbyss


    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.


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,257 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    bobbyss wrote: »
    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.

    He has been suing RTE over twittergate.

    Made a tidy sum.

    https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/revealed-the-sixfigure-sum-paid-to-gallagher-by-rte-over-tweetgate-error-36423593.html


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


    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.

    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.

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



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


    He is running as an independent - so not for FF.

    ...and FF and FG are backing him. This means they support him and will not put a candidate forward.

    Nobody has a chance, not even Gallagher the chancer.


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


    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.

    You're completely missing the point. It's not whether PP were seeking publicity or not it is that the Polls & stats were totally wrong!


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


    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.

    Again you are missing the point. It has nothing to do with me voting or not voting or liking or not liking him-I'm sure he is a nice guy. It has all to do with him promising one thing, and making a point of it, in order to broaden his appeal and then doing the complete opposite.


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


    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 ****.


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


    Again you are missing the point. It has nothing to do with me voting or not voting or liking or not liking him-I'm sure he is a nice guy. It has all to do with him promising one thing, and making a point of it, in order to broaden his appeal and then doing the complete opposite.

    For me how many terms didn't come into it, except that it would be regrettable if he didn't run again.

    One of my local councilors won the seat by campaigning she'd no interest in becoming a TD and only wanted to become a Councillor to represent the community...she didn't even finish one term before she ran and became a TD. Fair enough, but I'm sure many voted thinking they were getting local representation, (she went on to back cancelling the only bus to her neighbourhood). That would be something to kick up about, but here you have the ambassadorial role of President and with both cases, the people will ultimately decide so I don't see the reason you seem so annoyed by this.

    Higgins can be punished in the voting booth if anyone wants to show their ire.


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


    Higgins can be punished in the voting booth if anyone wants to show their ire.


    And if he gets a 2nd term without an election?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 5,107 ✭✭✭TomOnBoard


    ligerdub wrote: »
    And if he gets a 2nd term without an election?

    There's going to be an election alright.


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


    ligerdub wrote: »
    And if he gets a 2nd term without an election?

    Well then he won't be able to vote for someone else?


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


    TomOnBoard wrote: »
    There's going to be an election alright.


    Oh yeah, who's going ?


  • Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,780 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    You're completely missing the point. It's not whether PP were seeking publicity or not it is that the Polls & stats were totally wrong!

    No, they weren't. You need to figure out the difference between "the stats were wrong" and "I don't understand how statistics work".


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,224 ✭✭✭alaimacerc


    GarIT wrote: »
    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 ****.

    Seems SF are thinking more in terms of a cleanskin this time around. If they can get one that's eager to take the beating, which seems to be the problem for them.

    Also sounds like you have notions for what the job entails that doesn't much resemble what the constitution says it actually is.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,224 ✭✭✭alaimacerc


    eastwest wrote: »
    On what basis?

    Look at the spurious challenges to the results of various referenda. Some people think that churlish obstructionism is a basis all of its own.


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


    GarIT wrote: »
    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 ****.

    The Presidency is ultimately about representing the country. It's barely a political role.
    Gallagher was on an ego trip and talking about it like he was going to make a business out of it. It's refreshing to have somebody representing the country who isn't pushing the hard sell of capitalism/business first. Gallagher would be a horrible president.
    Adams would be a bad thing for a United Ireland. Sinn Fein need to move on from him and he certainly wouldn't be a help in that regard. I would have voted for him pre GFA when we needed such a spotlight. The nationalists are being heard now, be they Sinn Fein or not. Actually if there was a unionist candidate I'd probably vote for him/her in the pursuit of a united Ireland, if Michael D. wasn't running.


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


    You're completely missing the point. It's not whether PP were seeking publicity or not it is that the Polls & stats were totally wrong!

    Nope they predicted a close result, they were only slightly off, enough to swing the outcome but still only slightly off. Any poll has a margin of error.

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



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


    Nope they predicted a close result, they were only slightly off, enough to swing the outcome but still only slightly off. Any poll has a margin of error.


    So on the day before the election when the bookies were offering Trump @ 10/3 and Hillary @ 1/4 they were working on polls that were only 'slightly off' ?


  • Registered Users Posts: 554 ✭✭✭Creol1


    Can anyone confirm whether or not President Higgins has referred any legislation to the Supreme Court? I remember he convened the Council of State over the X-Case legislation but in the end did not refer.

    I'm not asking with a particular agenda, but interested to know.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 7,224 ✭✭✭alaimacerc


    Creol1 wrote: »
    Can anyone confirm whether or not President Higgins has referred any legislation to the Supreme Court? I remember he convened the Council of State over the X-Case legislation but in the end did not refer.
    Not that I'm aware of. Also convened the CoS over the International Protection Bill in 2015, also resulting in non-referral.


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


    So on the day before the election when the bookies were offering Trump @ 10/3 and Hillary @ 1/4 they were working on polls that were only 'slightly off' ?

    Odds are not probabilities.

    51:49 vs 49:51 IS only slightly off.

    And Hillary won the popular vote.

    This is irrelevant to this thread so I will not discuss it any further.

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



  • Registered Users Posts: 554 ✭✭✭Creol1


    dulpit wrote: »
    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...

    A lot of people are saying this but when we had the chance to open the presidency to 21 to 35 year olds in 2015 it was crushingly defeated.

    I voted Yes and I hope people making the above point did likewise, because it's a tad hypocritical to place such importance on people under 35 having a vote in an election if you are opposed to their right to stand in said election.


  • Registered Users Posts: 554 ✭✭✭Creol1


    For me how many terms didn't come into it, except that it would be regrettable if he didn't run again.

    One of my local councilors won the seat by campaigning she'd no interest in becoming a TD and only wanted to become a Councillor to represent the community...she didn't even finish one term before she ran and became a TD. Fair enough, but I'm sure many voted thinking they were getting local representation, (she went on to back cancelling the only bus to her neighbourhood). That would be something to kick up about, but here you have the ambassadorial role of President and with both cases, the people will ultimately decide so I don't see the reason you seem so annoyed by this.

    Higgins can be punished in the voting booth if anyone wants to show their ire.

    To my mind, the real issue is politicians selling out on their principles when they get elected, the way Labour and SYRIZA did, which is more concerning to me than any one individual promise made in a campaign.

    President Higgins, unlike many people, hasn't sold out after getting elected, and has used the position to articulate his left-wing beliefs, albeit not in a party political way, which would be inappropriate.

    Moreover, while it is correct to say that President Higgins promised only to serve one term, this pledge wasn't quite as cast-iron as people make it out to be: towards the end of the campaign when his election seemed secure, he gave a more circumspect if immodest answer when asked about his pledge to serve only one term, remarking, "one can never underestimate the love of the people".


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,141 ✭✭✭✭dulpit


    Creol1 wrote: »
    A lot of people are saying this but when we had the chance to open the presidency to 21 to 35 year olds in 2015 it was crushingly defeated.

    I voted Yes and I hope people making the above point did likewise, because it's a tad hypocritical to place such importance on people under 35 having a vote in an election if you are opposed to their right to stand in said election.

    I voted yes too, and fair point (ish)


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


    Creol1 wrote: »
    : towards the end of the campaign when his election seemed secure, he gave a more circumspect if immodest answer when asked about his pledge to serve only one term, remarking, "one can never underestimate the love of the people".

    Up to now I THOUGHT he was a cute hoor, now I'm CERTAIN he is one!


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


    Creol1 wrote: »
    A lot of people are saying this but when we had the chance to open the presidency to 21 to 35 year olds in 2015 it was crushingly defeated.

    I voted Yes and I hope people making the above point did likewise, because it's a tad hypocritical to place such importance on people under 35 having a vote in an election if you are opposed to their right to stand in said election.

    I think the people who voted no were just slow. I've heard so many arguments of "Most 21 year olds wouldn't be mature enough to represent the country", I had to explain to them that they weren't voting to elect a 21 year old, they were voting on whether or not to allow 21 year olds or even 34 year olds to be voted for, and if the particular person that ran for election wasn't the right person for it then don't vote for them but don't prevent them from running for election in the first place. And on top of that they had to get existing TDs or local councils to permit them to run for election so it's not like any random 21 year old could just walk into the election and be taken seriously in the debates etc.

    It's incredibly undemocratic and infuriates me. Even 21 would have been undemocratic, if you can vote you should be allowed to be a candidate. This is a much more serious type of discrimination than the gay marriage referendum yet it doesn't get 1% of the attention. Not letting a certain group of people participate in democracy is much more serious than not letting some people marry, imagine if it was women that couldn't be president, that would be changed fairly quickly.


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,257 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    GarIT wrote: »
    I think the people who voted no were just slow. I've heard so many arguments of "Most 21 year olds wouldn't be mature enough to represent the country", I had to explain to them that they weren't voting to elect a 21 year old, they were voting on whether or not to allow 21 year olds or even 34 year olds to be voted for, and if the particular person that ran for election wasn't the right person for it then don't vote for them but don't prevent them from running for election in the first place. And on top of that they had to get existing TDs or local councils to permit them to run for election so it's not like any random 21 year old could just walk into the election and be taken seriously in the debates etc.

    It's incredibly undemocratic and infuriates me. Even 21 would have been undemocratic, if you can vote you should be allowed to be a candidate. This is a much more serious type of discrimination than the gay marriage referendum yet it doesn't get 1% of the attention. Not letting a certain group of people participate in democracy is much more serious than not letting some people marry, imagine if it was women that couldn't be president, that would be changed fairly quickly.

    One thing about 21 year olds, is that eventually they will be 35 year olds. Women will always be women, so excluding them would certainly be wrong, just as excluding any defined group.

    I cannot think of a single suitable candidate for President who is under 45 years. How could they have sufficient life experience to stand on their record?

    I would be in favour of increasing the age to 45 rather than reducing it.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,224 ✭✭✭alaimacerc


    One thing about 21 year olds, is that eventually they will be 35 year olds. Women will always be women, so excluding them would certainly be wrong, just as excluding any defined group.

    Gender Recognition Act 2015, problem solved?
    GarIT wrote: »
    This is a much more serious type of discrimination than the gay marriage referendum yet it doesn't get 1% of the attention.
    Silly claim. Because in actual fact, it's not even 1% as "serious a type of discrimination".


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 554 ✭✭✭Creol1


    One thing about 21 year olds, is that eventually they will be 35 year olds. Women will always be women, so excluding them would certainly be wrong, just as excluding any defined group.

    I cannot think of a single suitable candidate for President who is under 45 years. How could they have sufficient life experience to stand on their record?

    I would be in favour of increasing the age to 45 rather than reducing it.

    We have an extremely rigorous system in place to limit the chances that an unsuitable person would be nominated for the presidency.

    Four local authorities or 20 Oireachtas members is a very high hurdle for prospective candidates to pass. Then the nominee actually has to win the election.

    Are we really to have so little confidence in the ability of either our representatives or the electorate itself to decide who is suitable that we actually have to have further constitutional restrictions based on age?


Advertisement