So Michael D IS running again!

FrancieBrady

blackwhite wrote: »

Are you seriously pretending to be incapable of comprehending that 46% is higher than 44%?

New low tbh

Stop being deliberately obtuse please.
I made a claim, go back and read it. It most certainly does not say that FG and FF are afraid of an election because a majority are in favour of one. That was what you wanted to see in what I said.

I said they are using that as an excuse. When you have fairly even numbers of both views is a perfectly reasonable time to call an election and attempt to get a clear mandate...without fear or favour.

blackwhite

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Stop being deliberately obtuse please.
I made a claim, go back and read it. It most certainly does not say that FG and FF are afraid of an election because a majority are in favour of one. That was what you wanted to see in what I said.

I said they are using that as an excuse. When you have fairly even numbers of both views is a perfectly reasonable time to call an election and attempt to get a clear mandate...without fear or favour.

You tried the usual spin, got called out on it. And your default is to fall back to personal insults. :rolleyes:


If more people want a continuation of the current arrangement than want an election - wanting to avoid being blamed for calling an election isn’t an unreasonable leap to take.
Unless of course you’re someone so blinded by bias that you’ll spin and twist anything to try and take a pop. As usual :rolleyes:

Edward M

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So as President he proposes to make grandiose and rabble rousing statements, and then feck all else to resolve them? Way to go Peter. Not hard to have a guess at who his mentor/idol might be.

Ah he livened up a pretty boring election really.
I think some are just jealous he took the headlines off a sf candidate saying she would wear a poppy if she was president.

FrancieBrady

blackwhite wrote: »

You tried the usual spin, got called out on it. And your default is to fall back to personal insults. :rolleyes:


If more people want a continuation of the current arrangement than want an election - wanting to avoid being blamed for calling an election isn’t an unreasonable leap to take.
Unless of course you’re someone so blinded by bias that you’ll spin and twist anything to try and take a pop. As usual :rolleyes:

Nice try to cover for your gaff.

I never mentioned when quoting the 45% figure that it was higher or a majority.
Didn't stop you going into protectionist mode (nothing wrong with being protective of a party you support btw) and projecting onto to my post. My post had nothing to do with a 'majority or higher percentages', it had to do with 45% of the electorate wanting an election.

blackwhite wrote:

The poll had a higher percentage who didn’t want an election (46%), but it appears you just read the headline and missed the actual details.

humberklog

blackwhite wrote: »

Labour will try and push Bacik as some point. They’ll ignore the fact that she has always struggled to win even a Dail seat, and push her regardless. Whether they’ll have enough councillors, never mind TDs and senators, to get her a nomination is another matter of course :P

She's never won a Dail seat even though Labour has had her on the docket a few times.

RandomName2

blackwhite wrote: »

Are you seriously pretending to be incapable of comprehending that 46% is higher than 44%?

New low tbh

FFS the margin of error (2.8%) is greater than the difference.

Nobody should seriously go by a single poll anyway, it can only give a ballpark estimate, and when you are talking about relatively small differences, it's entirely useless.

These aren't facts, they're estimates, and if you want an accurate one you go for a poll of polls.

And all this is relatively irrelevant when it's actually party popularity that will be the determining factor. With FG not commanding a clear majority, and FF not improving enough to seriously challenge them, I doubt their being an election very soon.

pixelburp

One nugget that has escaped attention amid all the clamouring for blood over Casey's comments, is that all 3 Dragons recently refused to disclose tax paid:

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/three-dragons-refuse-to-reveal-details-of-tax-paid-874497.html

Casey himself commenting: “only do so if all of the other candidates do so”, and asked: “When did Ireland become so obsessed about money?” Probably when a lot of us ended up with a lot less than you, Mr. Casey.

"Asked about his tax situation in the US, Mr Casey added “yes, being a green card holder and permanent resident in the USA, my wife and I have to pay taxes on our worldwide incomes in the USA”, before his spokesperson refused to provide any further information."

So not to repeatedly bang a drum, I feel there are more pressing and realistic questions to be asking a wealthy businessman residing in the US, than his thoughts on travellers.

RandomName2

pixelburp wrote: »

One nugget that has escaped attention amid all the clamouring for blood over Casey's comments, is that all 3 Dragons recently refused to disclose tax paid:

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/three-dragons-refuse-to-reveal-details-of-tax-paid-874497.html

Casey himself commenting: “only do so if all of the other candidates do so”, and asked: “When did Ireland become so obsessed about money?” Probably when a lot of us ended up with a lot less than you, Mr. Casey.

"Asked about his tax situation in the US, Mr Casey added “yes, being a green card holder and permanent resident in the USA, my wife and I have to pay taxes on our worldwide incomes in the USA”, before his spokesperson refused to provide any further information."

So not to repeatedly bang a drum, I feel there are more pressing and realistic questions to be asking a wealthy businessman residing in the US, than his thoughts on travellers.

Most of the candidates are rolling in cash, Michael D included.

Edward M

pixelburp wrote: »

One nugget that has escaped attention amid all the clamouring for blood over Casey's comments, is that all 3 Dragons recently refused to disclose tax paid:

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/three-dragons-refuse-to-reveal-details-of-tax-paid-874497.html

Casey himself commenting: “only do so if all of the other candidates do so”, and asked: “When did Ireland become so obsessed about money?” Probably when a lot of us ended up with a lot less than you, Mr. Casey.

"Asked about his tax situation in the US, Mr Casey added “yes, being a green card holder and permanent resident in the USA, my wife and I have to pay taxes on our worldwide incomes in the USA”, before his spokesperson refused to provide any further information."

So not to repeatedly bang a drum, I feel there are more pressing and realistic questions to be asking a wealthy businessman residing in the US, than his thoughts on travellers.

We all know he's a millionaire, and I'm not defending him as a candidate at all, but is there a suggestion that he is not tax compliant somewhere?

Wheeliebin30

pixelburp wrote: »

One nugget that has escaped attention amid all the clamouring for blood over Casey's comments, is that all 3 Dragons recently refused to disclose tax paid:

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/three-dragons-refuse-to-reveal-details-of-tax-paid-874497.html

Casey himself commenting: “only do so if all of the other candidates do so”, and asked: “When did Ireland become so obsessed about money?” Probably when a lot of us ended up with a lot less than you, Mr. Casey.

"Asked about his tax situation in the US, Mr Casey added “yes, being a green card holder and permanent resident in the USA, my wife and I have to pay taxes on our worldwide incomes in the USA”, before his spokesperson refused to provide any further information."

So not to repeatedly bang a drum, I feel there are more pressing and realistic questions to be asking a wealthy businessman residing in the US, than his thoughts on travellers.

Yous just don’t get it.

The majority don’t care about his financial situation.

They care finally someone in the public eye has said what the majority are thinking.

FrancieBrady

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Yous just don’t get it.

The majority don’t care about his financial situation.

They care finally someone in the public eye has said what the majority are thinking.

What did 70% in the polls care about, so you think? Did they just forget about this thing that has been referred to as a 'plague'?
Do they forget about it when they vote on every other election?

James Brown

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Yous just don’t get it.

The majority don’t care about his financial situation.

They care finally someone in the public eye has said what the majority are thinking.

Stats on that? The government seems to think differently re: ethic status.

BabyCheeses

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Yous just don’t get it.

The majority don’t care about his financial situation.

They care finally someone in the public eye has said what the majority are thinking.

If they majority are thinking it then it's not special. You probably couldn't tell people what Casey plans and can do as president. You would think people have figured it out by now. I'm starting to think we might as well let 16/17 year olds vote if people can be this easily convinced.

blackwhite

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Nice try to cover for your gaff.

I never mentioned when quoting the 45% figure that it was higher or a majority.
Didn't stop you going into protectionist mode (nothing wrong with being protective of a party you support btw) and projecting onto to my post. My post had nothing to do with a 'majority or higher percentages', it had to do with 45% of the electorate wanting an election.

I don’t support any party. I’d favour more of FGs current policies than anyone else’s, but I’ll happily criticise them for anything they bigger up as well. Francis Fitzgerald handling of McCabe being the most glaring recent one, but there’s plenty of others beside.

If a party resembling the PDs were on the scene then I’d be more inclined to throw my vote their way, but I’m stuck with the best of a bad bunch for now.

I know that might be hard to understand that not everyone blindly follows parties like a cult - and not everybody is willing to plumb the depths of defending every crime under the sun for their cult party - maybe even as hard as understanding that 46% is a higher percentage than 44% :rolleyes:

blackwhite

humberklog wrote: »

She's never won a Dail seat even though Labour has had her on the docket a few times.

And for some reason they’ve never stopped trying to ram her down the throats of the electorate.

They looked to have been trying to go the same way with Lorraine Higgins for a while as well, but it looks like they finally took the hint from the electorate after 2016.

FrancieBrady

blackwhite wrote: »

I don’t support any party. I’d favour more of FGs current policies than anyone else’s, but I’ll happily criticise them for anything they bigger up as well. Francis Fitzgerald handling of McCabe being the most glaring recent one, but there’s plenty of others beside.

If a party resembling the PDs were on the scene then I’d be more inclined to throw my vote their way, but I’m stuck with the best of a bad bunch for now.

I know that might be hard to understand that not everyone blindly follows parties like a cult - and not everybody is willing to plumb the depths of defending every crime under the sun for their cult party - maybe even as hard as understanding that 46% is a higher percentage than 44% :rolleyes:

You were going to show where I said anything about 'higher'?

Like so many others it's funny you always seem to fall victim to the misquote when you are 'not defending' the sitting government. :rolleyes:

Goldengirl

This post has been deleted.

Goldengirl

This post has been deleted.

pixelburp

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Yous just don’t get it.

The majority don’t care about his financial situation.

They care finally someone in the public eye has said what the majority are thinking.

It's rank hypocrisy to have made a tactic of attacking Higgins' financial transparency, only to refuse to engage in reciprocal action. Not because I believe in any impropriety but simply living up to your side of the bargain. And yeah, if Casey isn't a full time resident in Ireland I would question if he's paying his fair share. If he's refusing to disclose, what is he - and the others - hiding?

But apparently just badmouth some travellers and all is forgiven? Is that how cheap some people''s votes are?

Funny though, I remember folks here swearing blind the marriage and 8th amendment votes failing because of this mythical "silent majority", that ever present but apparently nonvoting demographic.

Tell me how

You know the saying; "In a democracy, you get the politicians you deserve" (or similar)

I think that's true. There's a direct correlation between the bickering/sniping amongst election candidates and people debating it online......

For Forks Sake

Jameswhalley wrote: »

It will be comical if MDH did indeed object to a halting site.Could Casey conceivably have known this before his controversial remarks .

Surprise, surprise, Casey was bullsh1tting (or can't read Irish surnames)


https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/peter-casey-denies-mixing-up-michael-d-higgins-and-ff-mayor-1.3668462#.W8j55E-V5tc.twitter

Presidential candidate Peter Casey has denied he made a mistake when he accused President Michael D Higgins of having objected to a Traveller halting site in Galway in 1968.

Galway City Council has been unable to shed light on the claim, made during the Virgin Media One presidential debate hosted by Pat Kenny on Wednesday night, despite Mr Casey claiming that the objection was “on the public record”.

However, a former Fianna Fail mayor with a similar surname, businessman Michael O hUiginn, has said that he was one of a majority of councillors who objected to plans by Galway’s local authority in 1968 to provide a hardstand in Rahoon, where Traveller families had been camped.

Mr hUiginn noted that Mr Higgins was not on the council at the time, and he has no recollection of him being involved in what transpired at Rahoon.

A Galway City Council spokesman said that Mr Casey’s reference this week was “too vague”, and also pointed out that Mr Higgins was not an elected member of the local authority at the time.

A spokeswoman for Mr Casey said the candidate stood by his claim, insisting that he had not confused names, and that it was “on the public record for journalists to check”.

FrancieBrady

For Forks Sake wrote: »

Surprise, surprise, Casey was bullsh1tting (or can't read Irish surnames)


https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/peter-casey-denies-mixing-up-michael-d-higgins-and-ff-mayor-1.3668462#.W8j55E-V5tc.twitter

Hilarious if that is true! :D:D How many 100's of thousands has he invested and he may have gotten something elemental wrong - check your sources.

Or maybe he hoped MDH would implicate himself alá Seanie boy in 2011?

StupidLikeAFox

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Or maybe he hoped MDH would implicate himself alá Seanie boy in 2011?

This I'd say. I don't think it was the question that felled SG the last time, I think it was his bumbling reaction to it. Then he mentioned the word envelope himself and it was goodnight Irene.

When PC threw that accusation out MDH didnt skip a beat and unequivocally denied it. If he had tried to deflect, or pawn it off or mumbled an answer it could have seriously damaged him, even if the accusation was subsequently proven false. That was probably his high point of the night IMO.

It also lent a bit more credence to the conspiracy theory that PC is only in it to try bring MDH down on behalf of the other candidates

Rhineshark

For Forks Sake wrote: »

Surprise, surprise, Casey was bullsh1tting (or can't read Irish surnames)


https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/peter-casey-denies-mixing-up-michael-d-higgins-and-ff-mayor-1.3668462#.W8j55E-V5tc.twitter

Ah, but you see "the majority" (...of the 2-4% likely to vote for Casey) don't care about that (or the myriad other dumb things he's said), just that he's finally said what the alleged majority is thinking - being correct is irrelevant as long as you're the same type of incorrect as the people you're appealing to, see above inability to read names.

That the majority, when the word is used by a logical or dictionary definition, appear to be voting for Higgins rather than the Fearless Truth-Teller is presumably irrelevant, as it indicates the majority may not agree with Casey after all. Or are not one-topic voters.

Jameswhalley

For Forks Sake wrote: »

Surprise, surprise, Casey was bullsh1tting (or can't read Irish surnames)


https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/peter-casey-denies-mixing-up-michael-d-higgins-and-ff-mayor-1.3668462#.W8j55E-V5tc.twitter

Casey is a ****

VinLieger

For Forks Sake wrote: »

Surprise, surprise, Casey was bullsh1tting (or can't read Irish surnames)


https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/peter-casey-denies-mixing-up-michael-d-higgins-and-ff-mayor-1.3668462#.W8j55E-V5tc.twitter

LOL who have we heard lines like this from before

Mr Casey would reveal more details on the day after the presidential election

blanch152

blackwhite wrote: »

I don’t support any party. I’d favour more of FGs current policies than anyone else’s, but I’ll happily criticise them for anything they bigger up as well. Francis Fitzgerald handling of McCabe being the most glaring recent one, but there’s plenty of others beside.

If a party resembling the PDs were on the scene then I’d be more inclined to throw my vote their way, but I’m stuck with the best of a bad bunch for now.

I know that might be hard to understand that not everyone blindly follows parties like a cult - and not everybody is willing to plumb the depths of defending every crime under the sun for their cult party - maybe even as hard as understanding that 46% is a higher percentage than 44% :rolleyes:

I know exactly what you mean. I think FG are doing a good job running the country, but fall down in a few areas such as climate change and other environmental issues, hence I vote Green and criticised the Budget for the lack of carbon taxes.

FrancieBrady

And Leo gives the mob more ammunition for the bonfire. Can't resist climbing on a bandwagon when he should have just let it fizzle out as it always does. :rolleyes:

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/oireachtas/taoiseach-condemns-peter-casey-comments-about-travellers-1.3668051

Hurrache

What Varadkar said, and what you're claiming, are 2 versions of reality. He was asked about it, what did you expect him to to? Had he said nothing, you'd also try find away to attack him over it.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

And Leo gives the mob more ammunition for the bonfire. Can't resist climbing on a bandwagon when he should have just let it fizzle out as it always does. :rolleyes:

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/oireachtas/taoiseach-condemns-peter-casey-comments-about-travellers-1.3668051

For some, Leo can do no right. I can only imagine the extent of your outrage if Varadkar had said something like that Casey was making some legitimate points but in the wrong way or had fully backed him.