So Michael D IS running again!

Bradlin

VinLieger wrote: »

Okay please explain how she will get around article 13.7 of the constitution to be able to do as you describe?

Do you think our current President got approval from anyone to say what he said about Fidel Castro?

Gemma O'Doherty wouldn't tolerate any crap from elected officials supposedly acting in the national interest.

She is exactly what this country needs right now.

AGC

Bradlin wrote: »

Do you think our current President got approval from anyone to say what he said about Fidel Castro?

Gemma O'Doherty wouldn't tolerate any crap from elected officials supposedly acting in the national interest.

She is exactly what this country needs right now.

She has to rely on those elected officials to get on the ballot paper

optogirl

Bradlin wrote: »

Do you think our current President got approval from anyone to say what he said about Fidel Castro?

Gemma O'Doherty wouldn't tolerate any crap from elected officials supposedly acting in the national interest.

She is exactly what this country needs right now.

While I admire Gemma's work on a lot of things, in particular the Mary Boyle cover-up, I couldn't bring myself to vote for an anti-vaxxer. It's just so dangerous.

Bradlin

optogirl wrote: »

While I admire Gemma's work on a lot of things, in particular the Mary Boyle cover-up, I couldn't bring myself to vote for an anti-vaxxer. It's just so dangerous.

What's an anti-vaxxer? Seriously, I have never heard that term before, and thought I was reasonably well read.

blanch152

Bradlin wrote: »

What's an anti-vaxxer? Seriously, I have never heard that term before, and thought I was reasonably well read.

https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/content/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-anti-vaxxer/

Bradlin

blanch152 wrote: »

https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/content/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-anti-vaxxer/

Thanks.

It would be the least of my worries in terms of whether to vote for her or not. She would have zero ability, as President, to influence things like this, but there are plenty of other areas in which she could shine a light, not least corruption in many of our highest offices.

It's time for a change.

Sad Professor

Is there evidence that she’s an anti-vaxxer?

optogirl

Sad Professor wrote: »

Is there evidence that she’s an anti-vaxxer?

She's shared stuff about the harm of the HPV on Twitter - in fairness she tends to present without comment but I just get a bit of a bang of tin foil hat from her

Sad Professor

optogirl wrote: »

She's shared stuff about the harm of the HPV on Twitter - in fairness she tends to present without comment but I just get a bit of a bang of tin foil hat from her

Yeah I’ve seen two tweets like that. Just links, one of them to The Journal. Certainly not evidence that she’s anti-vaxx.

Does anyone know what the anti-trans claims are based on?

Hurrache

Sad Professor wrote: »

Does anyone know what the anti-trans claims are based on?

Stuff like this




Then there's this

VinLieger

Bradlin wrote: »

Do you think our current President got approval from anyone to say what he said about Fidel Castro?

Gemma O'Doherty wouldn't tolerate any crap from elected officials supposedly acting in the national interest.

She is exactly what this country needs right now.

He most likely didnt get approval but that doesnt mean the government couldnt have acted on it if they wanted to or felt it was in the public interest. The castro comments obviously werent and due to how popular he is would have been a poor choice to act on by the government and Michael D likely knew he could get away with it for those reasons.


Still the president cannot do or say what they want and expect zero consequences due to how restrictive our constitution is on the president. The fact that so many like yourself are this blatantly ignorant of that fact i think is an unfortunate consequence of the trump effect where people are mistakenly under the impression due to how much it is in the news that the irish president is in some way comparable to the us one.

Bradlin wrote: »

Thanks.

It would be the least of my worries in terms of whether to vote for her or not. She would have zero ability, as President, to influence things like this, but there are plenty of other areas in which she could shine a light, not least corruption in many of our highest offices.

It's time for a change.

She would have just as much ability to influence vaccincation perceptions as she would anything else like corruption if she chose to.

Scary how willing you are to so easily to dismiss a very real public health issue just so you can "stick it to the man".

realdanbreen

optogirl wrote: »

While I admire Gemma's work on a lot of things, in particular the Mary Boyle cover-up, I couldn't bring myself to vote for an anti-vaxxer. It's just so dangerous.

Well maybe MichaeelD is an anti vaxer also , or anti loads of things. I mean he hasn't been asked to answer any questions for 7 years!

James Brown

Bradlin wrote: »

Gemma O'Doherty would be an excellent President.

She has no political allegiances and would not be afraid to ask the hard questions or upset the Establishment.

And she's not a pygmy that deviously gave an undertaking to only remain in office for 7 years, if elected. Only a seasoned politician could be cynical enough to renege on a commitment like that, with an embarrassing explanation that "I have more work to do".

Disgusting.

Seriously? He's the best President we've ever had in my book. Again, he's not strolling in, there's an election process.
I honestly don't know why some folk are so riled up. The President is an Ambassador.

VinLieger

realdanbreen wrote: »

Well maybe MichaeelD is an anti vaxer also , or anti loads of things. I mean he hasn't been asked to answer any questions for 7 years!

And in the case of an election he and everyone else will probably now be asked that very question.

Not really sure the point you are trying to make tbh.

Beechwoodspark

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Seriously? He's the best President we've ever had in my book. Again, he's not strolling in, there's an election process.

He’s been pretty average/poor and loads of ppl can’t stand him.

But thankfully he’s being forced to campaign against his will and the people can hold him to account.

VinLieger

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

loads of ppl can’t stand him.

Zero evidence to support such a statement

Beechwoodspark

VinLieger wrote: »

Zero evidence to support such a statement

take it from me plenty of people can’t stand the sight of him.

There’s loads of ppl on this site who want him out ASAP.

You will see what the ppl think of him when the election is held. An election he desperately tried to avoid. Which says it all.

Sad Professor

Here is O'Doherty today denying that she's anti-trans and anti-vax.

https://twitter.com/gemmaod1/status/1031539680750325761

The claims to the contrary seem pretty weak to me. Out of context tweets in which she was attacking FG, Leo and their pseudo-liberal schtick, etc. That said, I still think this is a stunt and her anti-corruption agenda would be better served by running for the Dail than the presidency.

blackwhite

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

He’s been pretty average/poor and loads of ppl can’t stand him.

But thankfully he’s being forced to campaign against his will and the people can hold him to account.

Whilst there's lots of aspects of MDH's politics that I disagree with, and certain comments he has made as President that I'd disagree with, I can still see he's streets ahead of any of the potential candidates so far.


Do any of those who are so set against him genuinely think that he won't win comfortably? Are they really that blinded by their own dislike for him that they don't/won't see that the majority of people seem quite happy with him in office?

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Seriously? He's the best President we've ever had in my book. Again, he's not strolling in, there's an election process.
I honestly don't know why some folk are so riled up. The President is an Ambassador.

He is not a patch on either of the two Marys.

Hurrache

Wait, so she's claiming that her tweets related to transgender and vaccines were in fact related to anti corruption?

Backpedalling has begun as she now comes under scrutiny for what she's been tweeting.

If you look at her tweets from today in which she's attempting to change purpose of what she said, her tweets are incoherent.

VinLieger

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

take it from me plenty of people can’t stand the sight of him.

Again zero evidence to support such a statement

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

There’s loads of ppl on this site who want him out ASAP.

Boards is in no way representative of the general public opinion, believing so is a bit naive

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

You will see what the ppl think of him when the election is held. An election he desperately tried to avoid. Which says it all.

I dont see how he desperately tried to avoid it tbh.

BTW im not saying he's widely popular either just that there is no real evidence to support the statement you made. Hear say simply doesn't cut it. I will be very interested to see the first poll when the field has been decided until then nobody can say anything for certain.

Beechwoodspark

VinLieger wrote: »

Zero evidence to support such a statement

To give you a quick example I was in a big city centre pub yesterday watching the all Ireland and when he was shown on the screen I heard numerous ppl booing or insulting him along the lines of eff you ya auld C**t, off to the old folks home Michael d you’ve made your money etc etc.

others saying he was a disgrace for the 3 k a night hotel stay. Champagn socialist all this type of talk.

People are tired of him and want him gone.

heard not one positive comment about him from anyone.

And the funny thing is, they say the youth have great fondness for him! Most of them actually take the p1ss out of him in reality.

realdanbreen

VinLieger wrote: »

And in the case of an election he and everyone else will probably now be asked that very question.

Not really sure the point you are trying to make tbh.

The point is can you believe him?

Beechwoodspark

VinLieger wrote: »

Again zero evidence to support such a statement



Boards is in no way representative of the general public opinion, believing so is a bit naive



I dont see how he desperately tried to avoid it tbh.

BTW im not saying he's widely popular either just that there is no real evidence to support the statement you made. Hear say simply doesn't cut it. I will be very interested to see the first poll when the field has been decided until then nobody can say anything for certain.

You must be fairly naive to the ways of politics if you don’t see how Michael d tried to avoid an election but the plan backfired.

VinLieger

realdanbreen wrote: »

The point is can you believe him?

About what? You literally just pointed out he hasn't been asked questions like that for 7 years. You really aren't making any sense.

VinLieger

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

You must be fairly naive to the ways of politics if you don’t see how Michael d tried to avoid an election but the plan backfired.

I think some people with axes to grind read far too much into an old man taking too long to consider his options.

Beechwoodspark

VinLieger wrote: »

I think some people with axes to grind read far too much into an old man taking too long to consider his options.

Whatever. My central point is that ppl are tired of him and want him out.

Hurrache

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Whatever. My central point is that ppl are tired of him and want him out.

You'll know come election time.

VinLieger

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Whatever. My central point is that ppl are tired of him and want him out.

Which again you have zero evidence to back up

If you believe its true show me some proof