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
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

So Michael D IS running again!

12357…186

Comments

  • #122
    GarIT
    Registered Users Posts: 8,671 ✭✭✭GarIT


    Sam Russell wrote: »
    How could they have sufficient life experience to stand on their record?

    If you feel they don't, then don't vote for them, don't exclude them from running. I'd be fairly likely to vote for someone without much relevant experience but I'd never consider not letting them run.


  • #123
    GarIT
    Registered Users Posts: 8,671 ✭✭✭GarIT


    Creol1 wrote: »
    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?

    What I was thinking, but you said it much better.


  • #124
    realdanbreen
    Registered Users Posts: 8,066 ✭✭✭realdanbreen


    Who ever gets elected should I believe as a matter of principle settle on a salary for the term of about 50K approx. As things stand they have a free mansion, free grub, free utilities, fuel, no expenditure of any kind. Unlike the rest of us they don't have bills or outgoings to pay from one end of the day to the other.
    That would soon separate the genuine man/woman of the people from the wafflers.


  • #125
    alaimacerc
    Registered Users Posts: 7,224 ✭✭✭alaimacerc


    Creol1 wrote: »
    We have an extremely rigorous system in place to limit the chances that an unsuitable person would be nominated for the presidency.

    Perhaps you missed the extensive field of muppets last time?


  • #126
    Sam Russell
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,340 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    GarIT wrote: »
    If you feel they don't, then don't vote for them, don't exclude them from running. I'd be fairly likely to vote for someone without much relevant experience but I'd never consider not letting them run.

    Having a difficult job of getting a nomination is certainly a good start. A minimum age is only a temporary problem, as they just wait until they are old enough. It is possible that a pop idol type may be proposed and would devalue genuine candidates.

    The last election should be an example for making it more difficult to stand. Having every possible candidate who could persuade four of the Ballygobackwards Councils in the country to nominate them, and then having their past dragged out for scrutiny by a rabid media, in the era of fake news, is something that reduces the status of the President to a reality TV formula.

    It is not seemly for our Presidential hopefuls to be reduced to a reality TV contest.


  • Advertisement
  • #127
    GarIT
    Registered Users Posts: 8,671 ✭✭✭GarIT


    Sam Russell wrote: »
    Having a difficult job of getting a nomination is certainly a good start. A minimum age is only a temporary problem, as they just wait until they are old enough. It is possible that a pop idol type may be proposed and would devalue genuine candidates.

    The last election should be an example for making it more difficult to stand. Having every possible candidate who could persuade four of the Ballygobackwards Councils in the country to nominate them, and then having their past dragged out for scrutiny by a rabid media, in the era of fake news, is something that reduces the status of the President to a reality TV formula.

    It is not seemly for our Presidential hopefuls to be reduced to a reality TV contest.

    Age won't change any of what you mentioned.


  • #128
    Sam Russell
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,340 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    GarIT wrote: »
    Age won't change any of what you mentioned.

    It widens the possible field, and would include sports stars, TV 'personalities', etc.

    Having good name recognition increases the chances of being considered, whether suitable or not.


  • #129
    alaimacerc
    Registered Users Posts: 7,224 ✭✭✭alaimacerc


    Sam Russell wrote: »
    The last election should be an example for making it more difficult to stand. Having every possible candidate who could persuade four of the Ballygobackwards Councils in the country to nominate them, and then having their past dragged out for scrutiny by a rabid media, in the era of fake news, is something that reduces the status of the President to a reality TV formula.

    None of them even withing roaring distance of ever seeing 45, much less 35, ever again, though. So a bit of a tangent from that issue -- unless it's to illustrate the point that some 34yo's would surely be better candidates than some of that shower.

    I'd not be at all dismayed if the nomination requirements were tightened up a bit. In theory at present you could have a field of 19. 19! The horror, the horror...


  • #130
    GarIT
    Registered Users Posts: 8,671 ✭✭✭GarIT


    Sam Russell wrote: »
    It widens the possible field, and would include sports stars, TV 'personalities', etc.

    As you pointed out they can just wait, like you suggest for everyone else in the current situation.


  • #131
    TomOnBoard
    Registered Users Posts: 5,109 ✭✭✭TomOnBoard


    Creol1 wrote: »
    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?

    Hope to fcuk the rigorous system doesn't exclude this kind gentleman.



    https://www.independent.ie/business/farming/rural-life/you-never-see-ordinary-joe-soaps-getting-into-high-office-roscommon-farmer-wants-to-be-president-37114410.html


  • Advertisement
  • #132
    realdanbreen
    Registered Users Posts: 8,066 ✭✭✭realdanbreen


    realdanbreen wrote: »
    Who ever gets elected should I believe as a matter of principle settle on a salary for the term of about 50K approx. As things stand they have a free mansion, free grub, free utilities, fuel, no expenditure of any kind. Unlike the rest of us they don't have bills or outgoings to pay from one end of the day to the other.
    That would soon separate the genuine man/woman of the people from the wafflers.


    Anyone else think 50k is plenty?


  • #133
    CircleofLife
    Registered Users Posts: 51 ✭✭CircleofLife


    He tore Mitt Romney to pieces in a radio debate.


  • #134
    dulpit
    Registered Users Posts: 10,229 ✭✭✭✭dulpit


    realdanbreen wrote: »
    Anyone else think 50k is plenty?

    No. They are the head of state, they represent the nation. Give them a decent salary. In the grand scheme of things a 50K salary or a 250K salary has no real bearing on the overall cost of the presidency.


  • #135
    pawdee
    Registered Users Posts: 548 ✭✭✭pawdee


    I'd vote for this lad:

    https://www.independent.ie/business/farming/rural-life/you-never-see-ordinary-joe-soaps-getting-into-high-office-roscommon-farmer-wants-to-be-president-37114410.html

    He looks like a fella on a Led Zeppelin album cover. The guy carrying the big bunch of sticks on his back?

    Sean Gallagher looks like he should be wearing a black bomber jacket and an earpiece. He looks more suited to nightclub security than high office. Just a couple of observations but I'll probably receive another warning.


  • #136
    realdanbreen
    Registered Users Posts: 8,066 ✭✭✭realdanbreen


    dulpit wrote: »
    No. They are the head of state, they represent the nation. Give them a decent salary. In the grand scheme of things a 50K salary or a 250K salary has no real bearing on the overall cost of the presidency.

    Fair enough that's your opinion. I believe a 50-60k salary would separate the genuine people who care from the Grá mo chroí wafflers and pontificators.


  • #137
    Kermit.de.frog
    Registered Users Posts: 23,434 ✭✭✭✭Kermit.de.frog


    I think Higgins has done a reasonable job for what the job is.

    However personally I think he is too old and should step away at this point. I also don't think it would be good to return to the days of the imagery of the head of state being some old folks home for retirement.

    I never agreed with the nonsense that there should be no election. This is suppose to be a democracy. I don't see for what reason so many thought Higgins should just be given the job again.

    He should absolutely have to contest and if people vote for him then fair enough.


  • #138
    flatty
    Registered Users Posts: 1,081 ✭✭✭flatty


    He stood up and announced, for the sole reason that he felt it gave him a better chance of being elected, that he categorically, if elected, would not seek a second term. If he now will not honour that absolutely unequivocal statement, he is exactly the kind of two faced politician who should be denied Office. He was neither a bad nor a good president, just average as expected. Seven years is plenty. Someone else should be given a turn.


  • #139
    flatty
    Registered Users Posts: 1,081 ✭✭✭flatty


    realdanbreen wrote: »
    realdanbreen wrote: »
    Who ever gets elected should I believe as a matter of principle settle on a salary for the term of about 50K approx. As things stand they have a free mansion, free grub, free utilities, fuel, no expenditure of any kind. Unlike the rest of us they don't have bills or outgoings to pay from one end of the day to the other.
    That would soon separate the genuine man/woman of the people from the wafflers.


    Anyone else think 50k is plenty?
    Me


  • #140
    GarIT
    Registered Users Posts: 8,671 ✭✭✭GarIT


    realdanbreen wrote: »
    Anyone else think 50k is plenty?

    I think it depends on where you're coming from, where I live most people would consider that being rich. But a doctor on 300k or lawyer, account or software engineer would think it's absolutely tiny.


  • #141
    L1011
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,523 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    If you want to ensure that only personally wealthy people can ever take the job, sure.


  • Advertisement
  • #142
    TomOnBoard
    Registered Users Posts: 5,109 ✭✭✭TomOnBoard


    flatty wrote: »
    He stood up and announced, for the sole reason that he felt it gave him a better chance of being elected, that he categorically, if elected, would not seek a second term. If he now will not honour that absolutely unequivocal statement, he is exactly the kind of two faced politician who should be denied Office. He was neither a bad nor a good president, just average as expected. Seven years is plenty. Someone else should be given a turn.

    Denied office??

    Do you mean

    1. the electorate should consider that he had said ( if your statement is true) that " he categorically, if elected, would not seek a second term" during the process of making up their minds as to whether they would vote for him in a fair and free election, OR

    2. he should be prevented from being allowed to run as a candidate?


  • #143
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 18,749 ✭✭✭✭[Deleted User]


    He lives rent free in the aras, he gets driven around by a driver in a car he doesn't have to spend a penny on.
    He travels the world paid for by the tax payer.
    I'm nor begrudging him any of it, but his salary on top of all that, is very high. 50k would be enough


  • #144
    Pugzilla
    Site Banned Posts: 1,765 ✭✭✭Pugzilla


    GarIT wrote: »
    I think it depends on where you're coming from, where I live most people would consider that being rich.


    Where are you from? Genuine question. Can't think of anywhere in Ireland where a 50k income is rich.


  • #145
    GarIT
    Registered Users Posts: 8,671 ✭✭✭GarIT


    Pugzilla wrote: »
    Where are you from? Genuine question. Can't think of anywhere in Ireland where a 50k income is rich.

    Tallaght, Springfield. 30k and not having to work with the general public would be considered well off here, almost everyone works in retail or a trade.


  • #146
    Praetorian
    Registered Users Posts: 3,711 ✭✭✭Praetorian


    The lie about the 2nd term annoys me quite a lot personally. I voted for him the first time as I found him quite likable and I thought it was great that he was only going to do one term. I cannot get over a lie of this magnitude. There is no other word for it.

    I think his presidency has been okay but not nearly as strong as the two ladies who came before him. I hope the country can come up with a better more honest candidate.


  • #147
    eagle eye
    Registered Users Posts: 37,485 ✭✭✭✭eagle eye


    So nobody can change their mind anymore?

    Like maybe he is proud of how well he has done in the job and feels like he should stay on.
    It's quite possible that a lot of people have urged him to stay on.
    I think he should go again, he is a very good man.


  • #148
    alaimacerc
    Registered Users Posts: 7,224 ✭✭✭alaimacerc


    Praetorian wrote: »
    The lie about the 2nd term annoys me quite a lot personally. I voted for him the first time as I found him quite likable and I thought it was great that he was only going to do one term. I cannot get over a lie of this magnitude. There is no other word for it.

    I guess "change of mind" is technically a phrase.

    I really don't see why this is a big deal for people. Is it the mere fact of the flip-flop? Is it the length of time in office? A deep-felt need to get a vote on it every seven years?


  • #149
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,791 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Praetorian wrote: »
    I cannot get over a lie of this magnitude. There is no other word for it.

    So it's your considered opinion that, at the time he said he only intended to seek a single term, he knew that to be untrue?

    Because that would be a lie. If he believed it to be true at the time, it wasn't a lie.

    This bizarre idea that changing one's mind is the One True Unforgivable Sin needs to die in a fire.


  • #150
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    realdanbreen wrote: »
    Fair enough that's your opinion. I believe a 50-60k salary would separate the genuine people who care from the Grá mo chroí wafflers and pontificators.
    No, it just closes off the Presidency to anyone with a good job.


  • Advertisement
  • #151
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    Praetorian wrote: »
    The lie about the 2nd term annoys me quite a lot personally. I voted for him the first time as I found him quite likable and I thought it was great that he was only going to do one term. I cannot get over a lie of this magnitude. There is no other word for it.

    I think his presidency has been okay but not nearly as strong as the two ladies who came before him. I hope the country can come up with a better more honest candidate.
    I'm sure you've said nothing 7 years ago that you've changed your mind about.


Advertisement