So Michael D IS running again!

Annasopra

ligerdub wrote: »

In what sense is that "anti-trans"? It's a criticism of extending the topic du jour in the media to children on the basis of being PR friendly to the masses and as a vote getter.

Children can't even vote or legally drink yet we're supposed to think it's reasonable for them to base a decision to change gender as something we should be supporting universally? You can be a broad supporter of trans rights (whatever that means) but still consider children to be beyond the pale, and to be honest I don't see what Gemma has said wrong there. I also say fair play to her for speaking up on the bandwagon of people getting on the LGBT, POC and the other hot topics these days. I suppose there's currency in finding fault in others so I can see why she'd be attacked by the usual sheep for her opinion there.

It's not like Fine Gael even care about this anyway. They are the puppet government of the EU anyway and just promote what they are told to promote by the powers in Brussels.

It is clear transphobia when she links trans youth to paedophilia, when she calls a party twisted for supporting the rights of young people.

jmcc

pixelburp wrote: »

Oh yeah, I remember the polls after the debate (though Gallagher contributed with some spectacular self-sabotage by way of the 'brown envelope' remark)

Gallagher never made a "brown envelope" remark. He mentioned an envelope but the phrase has been misremembered by people ever since.

Regards...jmcc

Annasopra

ligerdub wrote: »

You're the one using that phrase. You think people only become aware of their sexuality when they reach voting age?

Of course not. However, much like everything else with children, it's best to wait until they mature in all ways before using their opinions as reliable in matters such as this and entering into a potentially damaging (physically and emotionally), needless, and probably expensive road for them and all concerned. Manys a child goes through phases and behavioural shifts for all sorts of reasons. One thing to be comfortable in letting little Johnny be happy and being cool with him wearing a tutu wherever he wants, quite another to have a laissez faire attitude should little Johnny make the decision he wants to be little Joan! What's the big hurry anyway?

Like I say, a person under the age of 18, and many cases 16, can't enter into a legal contract or do all sorts of things legally, that is pretty much par for the course the world over. So, to reiterate, we're expecting to hold that as legitimate yet we're to allow them to change gender no problem. Ludicrous!

Gemma didn't say that a person couldn't be transgender, she opposed the introduction of the issue to minors. That's not being anti-trans, and I think anybody with at least a degree of common sense or decency would know that.



Brilliant, almost a full house.

If the boot fits....



Well that's rubbish for starters. You won't engage with me after a whopping one post that disagrees with your point of view of calling somebody "anti-trans" when that criticism was clearly made within a very narrow focus of that broad issue? Sounds to me like you know you've no leg to stand on and are prepared to go personal with a completely biased and falsified view about why somebody has engaged with you. Perhaps I read your post and felt that it was total hogwash and needed to be commented on.

Sexuality and gender identity are entirely separate issues.

Trans young people do exist. What you are suggesting is that children who identify as trans should be forced not to identify as trans. Can you not see the potential damage to the child in that?

pixelburp

jmcc wrote: »

Gallagher never made a "brown envelope" remark. He mentioned an envelope but the phrase has been misremembered by people ever since.

Regards...jmcc

So you're going to use pedantry rather than debate? Yes he said 'envelope', no colour mentioned, completely unprompted too and regretted it by the immediate 'aw sh*t' expression on his face, watching the footage at this minute. He was being completely badgered at that stage and probably lost his cool, but my point still stands.

yrreg0850

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

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.

I think Mr Higgins was trying to pull a fast one by not making known his intention to seek a second term until the last minute.
Surely he knew long before July that he wanted a second term. We probably would not know yet only for the media pestering him.


On a second point it should not be the perogative of the leaders of the political parties as to whether we have an election or not.
As things stand each leader can, if they wish enforce a whip on their TD's and councillors instructing them not to support other candidates.
Surely a referrendum is needed to change this system.

Bradlin

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.

Even if he was the best President we have had, and I completely disagree that he was better that either Robinson or McAleese, he is too old to serve another 7 years (I'm not interested in having an 82 year old President) and his playing the electorate for fools by promising to only stay for 7 years destroys his credibility.

He's had his time in the House and he should retire gracefully, as he promised he would do.

nc6000

Trasna1 wrote:

Higgins got elected because Pat Kenny's Frontline programme torpedoed Gallagher's campaign with the fake tweet. Fake news before "fake news" if you will.

Pay Kenny did us a favour there. Gallagher was a spoofer who would have been a terrible president.

jmcc

pixelburp wrote: »

So you're going to use pedantry rather than debate? Yes he said 'envelope', no colour mentioned, completely unprompted too and regretted it by the immediate 'aw sh*t' expression on his face, watching the footage at this minute. He was being completely badgered at that stage and probably lost his cool, but my point still stands.

No. I am just being precise. People often remember what they think they heard or saw rather than what they heard or saw. As has been shown by the subsequent investigations, RTE's electoral interference with the fake tweet was critical. Higgins made an issue of his pledge to do only one term. It was a major aspect of his campaign and he kept repeating it. He lied to the Irish people.

Regards...jmcc

L1011

Water John wrote: »

Amazingly, got a leaflet in the door on Thursday from Senator Maeve Higgins. Isn't that a coincidence.

That would be because you or someone else in the house is a NUI Seanad voter. If it isn't you, you opened someone else's post...

Trasna1

yrreg0850 wrote: »

I think Mr Higgins was trying to pull a fast one by not making known his intention to seek a second term until the last minute.
Surely he knew long before July that he wanted a second term. We probably would not know yet only for the media pestering him.


On a second point it should not be the perogative of the leaders of the political parties as to whether we have an election or not.
As things stand each leader can, if they wish enforce a whip on their TD's and councillors instructing them not to support other candidates.
Surely a referrendum is needed to change this system.

It was pure politics on Higgins behalf to delay his announcement of his intention to run - with the idea being the longer he left it, the less likely there was to be a contest. If Higgins wasn't running you'd have another clown car election, with 6+ candidates - and many potential candidates would only be able to make a viable run without him in the field. Until his intention was known it effectively suspended campaigning for nominations, particularly for independents.

He'd have been foolish not to use the one advantage of being the popular incumbent. Here's a politician after all.

ligerdub

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Sexuality and gender identity are entirely separate issues.

Trans young people do exist. What you are suggesting is that children who identify as trans should be forced not to identify as trans. Can you not see the potential damage to the child in that?

I never claimed sexuality and gender identity to be dependent of each other, the poster I was responding to made that link not me.

No, what I am suggesting is that children who identify as trans should have no legal standing to do so, as they have no legal standing to do plenty of other things. You see the law protects children in that way, as they should do here. They have not matured physically, emotionally or psychologically to be considered reliable enough to make such an agreement or decision. Can you not see the potential damage to the CHILD in allowing them in pursuing a potentially dangerous course of action they subsequently regret and could not have been expected to make a mature decision on? All the while that persons parents or guardian (clue is in the title), who should be considered wiser and responsible, step aside and do nothing.

It's the same way we shouldn't be obliged to recognise their potential imaginary friends when we are conducting the census.

If you have a problem with that then you should go out and protest everything else they legally aren't considered mature enough to do,decide upon or be legally considered an adult in. You shouldn't of course, because that would be incredibly irresponsible.

To counter your claim in the other post which said that it was transphobic because Gemma likened the policy to paedophilia, well that's also rubbish. She was using that claim as it was potentially abuse to a child, which while not exactly polished or advisable language, is a potentially fair accusation if you believe that there are valid risks to the child from a laissez-faire policy regarding children.

Anyway, I'll leave it there because it's no longer on-topic.

Trasna1

nc6000 wrote: »

Pay Kenny did us a favour there. Gallagher was a spoofer who would have been a terrible president.

I didn't think it was RTÉs role to sabotage a candidate so the establishments choice would be elected.

There is no knowing how good or bad Gallagher would have been. To be honest it's not a terribly difficult gig.

I'm fairly sure Gallagher wouldn't have been eulogising Castro though.

Strazdas

Bradlin wrote: »

Even if he was the best President we have had, and I completely disagree that he was better that either Robinson or McAleese, he is too old to serve another 7 years (I'm not interested in having an 82 year old President) and his playing the electorate for fools by promising to only stay for 7 years destroys his credibility.

He's had his time in the House and he should retire gracefully, as he promised he would do.

I'd agree with you on the age factor. Not many 77 year olds would be in the running for a seven year job. He should have given serious consideration to getting off the stage and letting someone younger take over.

Mary McAleese is ten years younger and has been an ex-President for seven years.

Water John

Yes Alice Mary Higgins letter is for me. Amazing that she is reaching out at this point, real coincidence.
Maeve Higgins if she's 35 would be a fine candidate. But then they'll start hounding her for the dog viz issue.

AGC

yrreg0850 wrote: »

I think Mr Higgins was trying to pull a fast one by not making known his intention to seek a second term until the last minute.
Surely he knew long before July that he wanted a second term. We probably would not know yet only for the media pestering him.

He didn’t leave it till the last minute, if he wanted he still wouldn’t have to have made his intentions known.

He has been quite clear in saying he would say it by a certain date and he did.

People fully entitled to their opinion but when the 2 main points against him to date are that he said he would only serve 1 term and an unfounded 3k a night hotel room from a bitter former rival the President is doing ok.

The pub story did make me laugh though...a lot different to the great reception he gets wherever he goes in the country from the Fleadh to LOi matches.

Beechwoodspark

AGC wrote: »

He didn’t leave it till the last minute, if he wanted he still wouldn’t have to have made his intentions known.

He has been quite clear in saying he would say it by a certain date and he did.

People fully entitled to their opinion but when the 2 main points against him to date are that he said he would only serve 1 term and an unfounded 3k a night hotel room from a bitter former rival the President is doing ok.

The pub story did make me laugh though...a lot different to the great reception he gets wherever he goes in the country from the Fleadh to LOi matches.

Laugh all you like from now until the day the votes are counted for all I care. I know what I saw and i know that when the campaign proper starts all the other candidates will be gunning for him. If he wins after all that fair play to him. But give the people a choice.

AGC

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Laugh all you like from now until the day the votes are counted for all I care. I know what I saw and i know that when the campaign proper starts all the other candidates will be gunning for him. If he wins after all that fair play to him. But give the people a choice.

When did he not give people a choice? People will get their chance to vote.

The only viable opposition to the president at present is the unknown Sinn Fein candidate

Beechwoodspark

AGC wrote: »

When did he not give people a choice? People will get their chance to vote.

The only viable opposition to the president at present is the unknown Sinn Fein candidate

Long way to go between now and polling day

Hotblack Desiato

Water John wrote: »

Freeman has reasonable credientals.

A heavy duty god-botherer and pro-lifer linked to the Iona Instutute.

Ehhh no thanks.

Drifter50

VinLieger wrote: »

Zero evidence to support such a statement

I think the evidence on this thread supports that or maybe you have`nt been following it. For me,I thought he was a reasonable president but now that he has reneged on his promise to step down after 7 years plus the fact that he is 77 at the min will result in support for him draining away.

I for 1 will vote for anyone before him and I don`t think I`m in the minority from speaking to my peers, family and friends about it

Bradlin

AGC wrote: »

He didn’t leave it till the last minute, if he wanted he still wouldn’t have to have made his intentions known.

He has been quite clear in saying he would say it by a certain date and he did.

People fully entitled to their opinion but when the 2 main points against him to date are that he said he would only serve 1 term and an unfounded 3k a night hotel room from a bitter former rival the President is doing ok.

The pub story did make me laugh though...a lot different to the great reception he gets wherever he goes in the country from the Fleadh to LOi matches.

The President of Ireland gets a great reception wherever he or she goes. That comes with the office, not with the person. Dustin the Turkey would get a great reception if he was President.

Hang on, there's an idea!! After doing us proud in the Eurovision ..................!!

Water John

I know Freeman's sister Lowe was involved in the No campaign but her daughter voted yes, maybe campaigned for it?
Don't know if she was actively involved herself? Please detail.

I would consider voting 1 for Higgins if no better candidate is on the ballot sheet.

VinLieger

Drifter50 wrote: »

I think the evidence on this thread supports that or maybe you have`nt been following it. For me,I thought he was a reasonable president but now that he has reneged on his promise to step down after 7 years plus the fact that he is 77 at the min will result in support for him draining away.

I for 1 will vote for anyone before him and I don`t think I`m in the minority from speaking to my peers, family and friends about it

Ohh so were back to hearsay and boards being an accurate representation of the electorate?

Pathetic how twisted up in their own agendas and bias people can get.

He may be unpopular as you say but until the first poll results come in theres zero evidence to support those claims so when your called out on it stop being so defensive as you have nothing to back them up with

blackwhite

Water John wrote: »

I know Freeman's sister Lowe was involved in the No campaign but her daughter voted yes, maybe campaigned for it?
Don't know if she was actively involved herself? Please detail.

I would consider voting 1 for Higgins if no better candidate is on the ballot sheet.

From what I’ve heard, Freeman has said she voted No herself, but doesn’t seemed to have been involved in any of the campaigns

Her “links” to the Iona Institute is that Maria Steen is her niece. She herself doesn’t seem to have any involvement, but the “liberals” of boards seem to think it’s very progressive to condemn people based on the unconnected actions of their relatives.
She has co-sponsored legislation to prohibit “conversion” therapy, which would put her at odds with the Iona hardliners - but again our “liberal” posters choose to ignore that, and try to imply she’s a paid up member :rolleyes:


I wouldn’t agree with her view on the 8th, but I’ve a lot of admiration for what she has done with Pieta House.

That said - I haven’t seen anything in her time in the Senate to convince me to elevate her to higher office.

batgoat

Another doozy from Gemma O'Doherty...
https://twitter.com/andgoseek/status/1031637065149173761

Linked McCann kidnapping back to Mary Boyle.... She definitely is not the voice Ireland needs......

Water John

Thanks Blackwhite, for your fair and balanced reply.

blackwhite

batgoat wrote: »

Another doozy from Gemma O'Doherty...
https://twitter.com/andgoseek/status/1031637065149173761

Linked McCann kidnapping back to Mary Boyle.... She definitely is not the voice Ireland needs......

It’s a pity that she’s such a gullible nut job, because behind it all she does (every now and again) hit on something worth highlighting..

But her embracing of every crackpot conspiracy theory that comes along makes it so easy for everything she does to be dismissed - including the odd bit of valuable insight she has highlighted.


She’s become so obsessed with being anti-establishment that she has abandoned any hint of a journalistic filter, and instead will leap on anything that’s “sticking it to the man” instead of having the wit to focus on the actual stories (which end up getting lost in the fog of crazy that she can’t seem to stay away from)

makeorbrake

Water John wrote: »

Thanks Blackwhite, for your fair and balanced reply.

blackwhite wrote: »

It’s a pity that she’s such a gullible nut job,

More disinformation but what else would you expect in Ireland.

She said he gave them preferential treatment. What of it?

She's a damn fine journalist - shows guts and courage. Has gone up against the likes of Dennis O'Brien and an arrogant $$$$ of a Garda Commissioner.

She has been reporting on corruption, coverup and lack of accountability and transparency in Ireland. Anyone who doesn't think these are central to all that goes on in this country either has their head in the sand or is part of the problem.

Jim2007

makeorbrake wrote: »

She has been reporting on corruption, coverup and lack of accountability and transparency in Ireland. Anyone who doesn't think these are central to all that goes on in this country either has their head in the sand or is part of the problem.

But an Irish presidency is not about any of that! An Irish president has only one responsibility to the people and that is to uphold their wishes as expressed in the constitution, everything else is optional. The last thing the country needs is a president who thinks they have a mandate to carry out their agenda and as a result starts refusing to sign bills into law, not because they are unconstitutional, but because they don't agree with them. Or refuse to dissolve the Dail for similar reasons. That would cause a constitutional crisis - the government elected by the people unable to carry out it's policy. And we have no mechanism in the constitution to deal with such an issue.

The place for agendas is the Dail. And most of the people expressing a wish to run for the presidency right now, should be heading to Leinster House not the park.

Try_harder

I feel a lot are only doing it to raise their profile. Not a hope of getting into the park!