So Michael D IS running again!

James Brown

I'd say it was more about Leo taking a stance on the controversy. I wonder how many like to get early of a morning? Or does he know he can only put that ignorance on the everyday poor?

RandomName2

seamus wrote: »

Why only the government? Why not the entire Dail, Seanad and county councils?

Because the government is.. wait, are you being facetious?

seamus wrote: »

Do you think it's inappropriate that Sinn Fein have backed Ni Riada?

They may have backed her, but if I recall she's removed any Sinn Fein branding or official stamp from any of her election material. In the same way that there was a significant distancing between Michael D. and the Labor party. This isn't merely coincidental the office is meant to be apoliti- why am I telling this to someone who clearly knows this?

seamus wrote: »

Or is it just the fact that Varadkar has criticised Casey?

I'd feel the same way if Varadkar said that people shouldn't vote for Gallagher. I'd find it very strange, and not a little inappropriate.

seamus wrote: »

You seem to be advocating a position where the only logical outcome is that no elected official is allowed to provide any input about a presidential candidate.

How about all public servants as well, if you are going to invent stuff. I'm talking about the Taoiseach, saying that people shouldn't vote for a particular candidate.

seamus wrote: »

However your use of the word "dictate" seems to reveal some level of double-standard. If you're a government member, then you're "dictating", otherwise you're just someone giving an opinion.

The head of the government speaking as head of the government, directly addressing the public. In what fantasy land is that merely an opinion.

seamus

RandomName2 wrote: »

The head of the government speaking as head of the government, directly addressing the public. In what fantasy land is that merely an opinion.

I think your sticking point here is the mistaken belief that the Taoiseach is "in charge" of the people, and is therefore "dictating" whenever he states an opinion on a matter.

He is employed by the people to run the country. Any statement on his part to the people is therefore a recommendation from an employee on the best course of action to take, not a directive from a superior.

I see no reason why the person who has been given the most responsibility in the state, should have their opinion muzzled.

RandomName2

seamus wrote: »

I think your sticking point here is the mistaken belief that the Taoiseach is "in charge" of the people, and is therefore "dictating" whenever he states an opinion on a matter.

He is employed by the people to run the country. Any statement on his part to the people is therefore a recommendation from an employee on the best course of action to take, not a directive from a superior.

I see no reason why the person who has been given the most responsibility in the state, should have their opinion muzzled.

In the same way that the president can have an opinion on what government the public should elect? :rolleyes:

seamus

RandomName2 wrote: »

In the same way that the president can have an opinion on what government the public should elect? :rolleyes:

Yes?

RandomName2

seamus wrote: »

Yes?

What? Really? :eek: Well, that's consistent at least, but it's out of whack with the character of the constitution.

I haven't brushed up on my Republic of Ireland Act in a while, but it's probably not unconstitutional for the office to do so, but the backlash for doing so would be swift and severe. The Dáil would certainly call it an abuse of the office.

Okay, I won't really give an opinion on whether I think this is right or wrong, but it should at least be consistent between both the president and taoiseach.

FrancieBrady

Leo jumping on this bandwagon should tell you that disgust at Casey's remarks is the popular outcome. Leo rarely misses a chance when it comes to popular bandwagons.

Hurrache

RandomName2 wrote: »

The head of the government speaking as head of the government, directly addressing the public. In what fantasy land is that merely an opinion.

Only in a military dictatorship does it become a dictat.

Didn't see everyone agreeing to pay their water bills, why do you think people are going to now vote based on his comments?

RandomName2

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Varadkar expressing an opinion is not dictating anything and that's a ridiculous suggestion tbh. What's next, he's not allowed say "Vote Fine Gael" ??

Varadkar didn't just express his opinion. If he had simply said 'I personally find the remarks regrettable', we could read between the lines, but it would be still keeping a distance between his opinion, and the election.

'I hope when the people of Ireland come to Ireland to vote next Friday they will give Mr Casey and anyone who holds those views a very clear message.'

Is something of a different nature though.

Why wouldn't he say vote Fine Gael - he is literally the head of the party. To be honest though I can't think of a party leader saying that the public shouldn't vote for another party. It's just not the done thing.

'Only idiots vote Fianna Fail' would be an interesting election line by Fine Gael though.

Hurrache wrote: »

Only in a military dictatorship does it become a dictat.

Didn't see everyone agreeing to pay their water bills, why do you think people are going to now vote based on his comments?

Hurrache uses pedantry

Dictate: to prescribe or lay down authoritatively.

It wasn't effective.

Hurrache

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Leo jumping on this bandwagon should tell you that disgust at Casey's remarks is the popular outcome. Leo rarely misses a chance when it comes to popular bandwagons.

You tried this one already, nobody bought it. Why are you trying it again?

Hurrache

RandomName2 wrote: »

Hurrache uses pedantry

Dictate: to prescribe or lay down authoritatively.

It wasn't effective.

So wait, you're either claiming his response to a question is a dictat to how we should vote, or you aren't. Which is it?

RandomName2

Hurrache wrote: »

So wait, you're either claiming his response to a question is a dictat to how we should vote, or you aren't. Which is it?

My beef was with the head of government saying that the public should not vote for a particular candidate in an upcoming presidential election. Do you have anything more substantial to offer than flimsy attempts to redefine the dictionary definitions of dictate?

The word you're looking for is spelled 'diktat' by the way

Hurrache

You're getting too hung up on it, he's under no obligation to remain neutral and not proffer an opinion.

By simply endorsing Higgins, or any candidate, he's implying don't vote for anyone else.

RandomName2

Hurrache wrote: »

By simply endorsing Higgins, or any candidate, he's implying don't vote for anyone else.

That's clearly the implication, but it's highly unusual to witness punditry beyond that.

blanch152

RandomName2 wrote: »

In the same way that the president can have an opinion on what government the public should elect? :rolleyes:

Nobody is stopping the President from having an opinion on what government the public should elect.

However, the Constitution, put in place by the democratic will of the people, places certain restrictions on the President by virtue of the nature of the position, from expressing whatever opinion he has.

No such constitutional restriction exists in the case of the Taoiseach. In fact, the freedom of expression provisions of the Constitution both allow the Taoiseach to have an opinion on who should be President and express it.

FrancieBrady

Hurrache wrote: »

You tried this one already, nobody bought it. Why are you trying it again?

What?

Varadkar jumped on a bandwagon to chide a candidate.

Had he used it to score a point for the candidate he allegedly supports (curiously he didn't) then fair enough, all is is fair in love and campaigns, but no, he used it to strike a populist note.

Casey is doomed if Varadkar has sniffed public opinion on this one correctly. And he rarely gets the smell of an opportunity to be popular wrong.

Hurrache

You've already said. And you've already been told there's no bandwagon jumping, he was asked a question which he answered. And it's been put to you by others that if he said nothing you'd also try find a way to take a pop. And yet here we are again with you at the exact same thing you said already.

MrMusician18

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Leo jumping on this bandwagon should tell you that disgust at Casey's remarks is the popular outcome. Leo rarely misses a chance when it comes to popular bandwagons.

Such is Michael D's popularity coming out against Casey was hardly going to be controversial.

Casey is not going to win. What will be interesting is how well he polls. I suspect he will do a lot better than the 2% he was polling at last week even if he ends his campaign early.

FrancieBrady

Hurrache wrote: »

You've already said. And you've already been told there's no bandwagon jumping, he was asked a question which he answered. And it's been put to you by others that if he said nothing you'd also try find a way to take a pop. And yet here we are again with you at the exact same thing you said already.

And my 'opinion' of the phrasing and content of what he said was to jump on a bandwagon. He has form for this. And it has gotten him in trouble before.

You can 'put' whatever you like on here, and so can I.

FrancieBrady

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Such is Michael D's popularity coming out against Casey was hardly going to be controversial.

Casey is not going to win. What will be interesting is how well he polls. I suspect he will do a lot better than the 2% he was polling at last week even if he ends his campaign early.

Well at least people have started to get more realistic about how much impact this will have on the race. He'll land somewhere between 5 and 10% which would tally with my estimate of how many feel the same way as Casey.

James Brown

FrancieBrady wrote: »

And my 'opinion' of the phrasing and content of what he said was to jump on a bandwagon. He has form for this. And it has gotten him in trouble before.

You can 'put' whatever you like on here, and so can I.

None of the cool kids agree with you, yet you persist in having an opinion

Leo being Leo alright. I'd image he's more with Casey behind the scenes. I say this because of his attitude towards those worse off in society and his 'people that like to get up early' ignorant campaign, can't see him being okay with the traveler lifestyle. That said do we know his real opinion on anything?

Royal Legend

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Such is Michael D's popularity coming out against Casey was hardly going to be controversial.

Casey is not going to win. What will be interesting is how well he polls. I suspect he will do a lot better than the 2% he was polling at last week even if he ends his campaign early.

if he pulls out and you still vote for him, will the poll publish his result or will it be classed as a spoiled vote?

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

And my 'opinion' of the phrasing and content of what he said was to jump on a bandwagon. He has form for this. And it has gotten him in trouble before.

You can 'put' whatever you like on here, and so can I.

Yeah, it has gotten him in so much trouble that his party are now losing votes all over the place. Some perspective is needed.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Yeah, it has gotten him in so much trouble that his party are now losing votes all over the place. Some perspective is needed.

Well, there's a turn up. Blanch admitting that he does it.

I never said it lost him votes. It is designed to get him votes after all. Leo is many things - stupid, is not one of them.

FrancieBrady

Royal Legend wrote: »

if he pulls out and you still vote for him, will the poll publish his result or will it be classed as a spoiled vote?

Yes, far as I can see on the Presidential election Act 1937 the votes will be counted as normal.
I can't find out what would happen in the unlikely event that he would win. But I reckon it would be classed the same as the candidate dying in the intervening period in which case a new election is held.

Sycamore Tree

It started at the last election but every Presidency election from now on will be more and more showbiz - more like a reality TV show than a credible election.
I guess the pointlessness of the role copper fastens that. Every businessman or celebrity will fancy their chances from now on.

Rhineshark

Casey is doomed anyway. He's not even aiming for 2nd place. He'll be doing well if he's not last place. Even if he excoriates the Travellers from now until the election.

Sure, there apparently are a few people that will forgive any inanity as long as they can "have a national discussion" (given Casey's remarks read for that "slate a minority") but I think those one-issue voters are relatively few. Especially for a role where he cant do anything anyway. If he did win (due to every other candidate being eaten by a horse-sized duck), presumably he'd just wander around being inane at foreign dignatories and possibly lobbing golf balls into lakes.

Royal Legend

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Yes, far as I can see on the Presidential election Act 1937 the votes will be counted as normal.
I can't find out what would happen in the unlikely event that he would win. But I reckon it would be classed the same as the candidate dying in the intervening period in which case a new election is held.

Interesting

Whether he continues or pulls out, at this stage he has my vote, not because of his comments, but for his honesty, sadly lacking in our current incumbent and some of the other candidates

Michael D stated this morning that his campaign will cost around €360k, who is funding him? Is it Lab/FG/FF or somebody else or out of his own pocket, seeing as he is now a millionaire

James Brown

I think we need filter out news of national importance and news that might cause a stir. It was hardly the burning question of the country ffs. The traveler thing is a chancer of an egotist looking for attention. It's shameful behaviour for anyone to engage in.

Maybe the idea that 'the media won't talk about it' is because decent people aren't interested in scapegoating minorities and we've a lot of decent people in the country?

Loafing Oaf

Rhineshark wrote: »

If he did win (due to every other candidate being eaten by a horse-sized duck),