So Michael D IS running again!

James Brown

blackwhite wrote: »

The appearance is that they're not so much interested in winning the Presidential election - just in taking advantage of an opportunity to promote the party at a time when the other parties aren't taking part.


In the 8th Referendum campaign they were the only large party to have their party leader plastered across their campaign posters - which gave more than a slight suggestion that promoting the party for a future GE was their actual focus.

It's not much of a leap to think that the same might be going on this time around (and plenty of commentators suggested as much at the time SF announced they'd contest the election).

The relative silence since about who the actual candidate will be doesn't do anything to dispel the theory

I agree so. I thought you were saying using the posters in such a manner was cynical. They've no chance of winning in a Presidential race and I don't think they've got any high profile personality beside Mary Lou. They'd be wise to keep their money.

As regards the rest, political party guilty of self promotion? I'm aghast. Not like everyone was at it or anything. Leo is only short of having a press conference on why puppies shouldn't be given as Christmas presents and his partner in politics Micheal is desperate to come across as relevant.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I agree so. I thought you were saying using the posters in such a manner was cynical. They've no chance of winning in a Presidential race and I don't think they've got any high profile personality beside Mary Lou. They'd be wise to keep their money.

As regards the rest, political party guilty of self promotion? I'm aghast. Not like everyone was at it or anything. Leo is only short of having a press conference on why puppies shouldn't be given as Christmas presents and his partner in politics Micheal is desperate to come across as relevant.

The use of the referendum campaign for self-promotion was acceptable in your eyes?

blanch152

makeorbrake wrote: »

@blanch152 : I simply don't agree. Have you any experience of your judicial system and the legal professions in Ireland. What of AGS? We'll take that as a starting point.

Well, you have anecdotes, I have a report by a respected international organisation.

Every country has corruption, like every country has crime. According to international comparisons, we are among the least corrupt countries in the world. There are much more important issues out there - housing, public transport, climate change mitigation, environmental protection, Project 2040, regional development - that I wish would get the same amount of coverage as what is, by even European standards, relatively low-level corruption allegations.

blanch152

makeorbrake wrote: »

Now this isn't lazy - it's just nasty misinformation. Showing your true colours. There is no truth to the 'anti-vax assertion. It's called not simply accepting the HSE - but challenging them...and their record is far from a good one.

It is not misinformation, it is the truth.

The SF candidate does not support vaccination and hasn't vaccinated her children. That is the public record.

If you have private information that suggests something different, please share.

Her views on the issue are very dangerous.

VinLieger

makeorbrake wrote: »

Now this isn't lazy - it's just nasty misinformation. Showing your true colours. There is no truth to the 'anti-vax assertion. It's called not simply accepting the HSE - but challenging them...and their record is far from a good one.

Time and again it has been proven anti vax concerns relating to the MMR and HPV are completely unfounded, a presidential candidate let alone president challenging these facts without any scientific evidence is incredibly dangerous from a public health perspective

VinLieger

So gemma has admitted her goal is to initiate a constitutional crisis


https://twitter.com/oconnellhugh/status/1031853176432087040

AGC

So instead dragged it through the courts and be told to sign it.

Best interests of the people, good one Gemma.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

The use of the referendum campaign for self-promotion was acceptable in your eyes?

SF were not the only ones using it for self promotion. You disagree?

Loafing Oaf

blanch152 wrote: »

It is not misinformation, it is the truth.

The SF candidate does not support vaccination

She's not the candidate yet...

jm08

blackwhite wrote: »

The appearance is that they're not so much interested in winning the Presidential election - just in taking advantage of an opportunity to promote the party at a time when the other parties aren't taking part.


In the 8th Referendum campaign they were the only large party to have their party leader plastered across their campaign posters - which gave more than a slight suggestion that promoting the party for a future GE was their actual focus.

It's not much of a leap to think that the same might be going on this time around (and plenty of commentators suggested as much at the time SF announced they'd contest the election).

The relative silence since about who the actual candidate will be doesn't do anything to dispel the theory

Or the fact that the leader of the party is a woman! Don't think a poster of Leo or Michael Martin would have worked well for the Repeal of the 8th!

For Forks Sake

VinLieger wrote: »

So gemma has admitted her goal is to initiate a constitutional crisis


https://twitter.com/oconnellhugh/status/1031853176432087040

Any TD, Senator or county councillor who gives her their backing deserves to have serious questions asked of their judgment.
And then beaten around the head with a copy of the constitution.

ligerdub

Sierra Oscar wrote:

Some people are easily misled. The sad thing is they believe they are somehow more enlightened than everyone else after viewing and listening to conspiracy theory nonsense. We live in an age where fake news and disinformation is passed off as real journalism.

The subtle message there is that it's the independent web only types most guilty of that, whereas in reality the most well known or "mainstream" if you will are as bad if not worse in that regard.

Annasopra

ligerdub wrote: »

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.

This is completely your opinion that children are not mature physically, emotionally or psychologically to decide how they identify. It is an opinion that has no evidence base and is not backed up by major medical professional associations.

There may be regret with lots of things. Of course there can but obviously with guidance and support from qualified medical professionals you can try to ensure that children making these decisions do not do so on a whim.

Do you not see the potential psychological damage of forcing children to live a certain way against their express wishes? Nah Gemma used transphobic language in her tweets. That isnt really up for debate. Her languge where she compared trans children to sexual abuse of children cant really be interpreted any other way than transphobic.

batgoat

Gemma O'Doherty is now threatening legal action via dm on twitter against the woman who called her views out. Primarily her view on the hpv vaccine.

https://twitter.com/fionapettit71/status/1031983527456370688

Water John

That Presidential bid is going tits up very quickly.

Creol1

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

This is completely your opinion that children are not mature physically, emotionally or psychologically to decide how they identify. It is an opinion that has no evidence base and is not backed up by major medical professional associations.

On the contrary, it is a well-established fact that the majority of children who see themselves as trans actually come to accept their birth sex in adulthood: http://www.sexologytoday.org/2016/01/do-trans-kids-stay-trans-when-they-grow_99.html.

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

There may be regret with lots of things. Of course there can but obviously with guidance and support from qualified medical professionals you can try to ensure that children making these decisions do not do so on a whim.

But the legislation does not make provision for medical professionals to have a role in deciding this. It is the parents and, if the parents object, the courts, who decide. Indeed, the trans movement is arguing that this should not be seen as a medical or psychiatric issue.

VinLieger

Wow she mught crash and burn before even getting a nomination, cant wait for her to blame that on a conspiracy

blackwhite

Creol1 wrote: »

On the contrary, it is a well-established fact that the majority of children who see themselves as trans actually come to accept their birth sex in adulthood: http://www.sexologytoday.org/2016/01/do-trans-kids-stay-trans-when-they-grow_99.html.



But the legislation does not make provision for medical professionals to have a role in deciding this. It is the parents and, if the parents object, the courts, who decide. Indeed, the trans movement is arguing that this should not be seen as a medical or psychiatric issue.

How does any of that relate to (or excuse!) Gemma O’Doherty trying to link recognition of trans children to paedophilia??

Annasopra

blackwhite wrote: »

How does any of that relate to (or excuse!) Gemma O’Doherty trying to link recognition of trans children to paedophilia??

It doesn't

Creol1

blackwhite wrote: »

How does any of that relate to (or excuse!) Gemma O’Doherty trying to link recognition of trans children to paedophilia??

1. I was addressing specific points that were made. I quoted these in my post.

2. Gemma O'D has never linked recognition of trans children to paedophilia. A misleading screengrab has been doing the rounds giving this impression. This screengrab doesn't show the post she was actually replying to. It is clear from the actual post that no such connection was ever made.

imme

Carnival, not circus is the only appropriate word to describe what the presidential race can degenerate to.
I think the county council route is past its sell by date if it ever had a value.

It gives county and city councilors an inflated and false opinion of their own abilities and power.
Carnival is all it is.

Annasopra

Creol1 wrote: »

On the contrary, it is a well-established fact that the majority of children who see themselves as trans actually come to accept their birth sex in adulthood: http://www.sexologytoday.org/2016/01/do-trans-kids-stay-trans-when-they-grow_99.html.

But the legislation does not make provision for medical professionals to have a role in deciding this. It is the parents and, if the parents object, the courts, who decide. Indeed, the trans movement is arguing that this should not be seen as a medical or psychiatric issue.

Of course there are regrets

To be fair a lot of those 80% desist/detransition have been debunked extensively.

https://medium.com/@juliaserano/detransition-desistance-and-disinformation-a-guide-for-understanding-transgender-children-993b7342946e
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/brynn-tannehill/the-end-of-the-desistance_b_8903690.html?guccounter=1

I don't know what legislation you are talking about? The Gender Recocgnition Act 2015 is not relevant to this discussion because it currently does not provide any legal framework for trans under 16s to legally have their gender identity recocgnised.

This doesnt mean though that trans children are being ignored - currently the HSE is referring them to UK clinicians
https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/transgender-teens-going-to-uk-clinic-for-special-treatment-29527565.html

We are talking about proposals here NOT current legislation

Recommendations
The Chair submitted the Group’s report to the Minister for Employment Affairs and Social Protection on 15 June 2018. The key recommendations of the report are that, in principle;

A: a system of gender recognition be introduced for children subject to the following key principles:

parental consent required
the process to be administrative,
third party support for the child and family involved
a straightforward revocation process to be included

To be fair in reviewing the Act the review group lookes extensively at this in terms of the rights of the child
https://www.welfare.ie/en/downloads/GRA%20Review%20Report.pdf

blackwhite

Creol1 wrote: »

1. I was addressing specific points that were made. I quoted these in my post.

2. Gemma O'D has never linked recognition of trans children to paedophilia. A misleading screengrab has been doing the rounds giving this impression. This screengrab doesn't show the post she was actually replying to. It is clear from the actual post that no such connection was ever made.

It’s fairly clear on her twitter feed exactly what she posted.

And funnily enough - despite the dozens of people calling her out for it she dint reply once. Although she finds time to respond to most of the cranks who spout conspiracy theories on her feed.

Almost like she was trying to plant the nasty insidious little seed - but try to give enough deniability when she’d be called out for it.


As I’ve said previously - she’s done some good with a few things she’s exposed i the past - but she’s far too pre-disposed to believe every crackpot conspiracy theory so Ling as its “sticking it to the man”. Kills her credibility and it’s sad to think it’ll all likely end up with herself, Jim Corr and few other whack jobs tilting at windmills and claiming the world is out to get them

gandalf

batgoat wrote: »

Gemma O'Doherty is now threatening legal action via dm on twitter against the woman who called her views out. Primarily her view on the hpv vaccine.

https://twitter.com/fionapettit71/status/1031983527456370688

That's not very presidential of her.

Hotblack Desiato

gandalf wrote: »

That's not very presidential of her.

Depends which president she's trying to emulate!!

yrreg0850

imme wrote: »

Carnival, not circus is the only appropriate word to describe what the presidential race can degenerate to.
I think the county council route is past its sell by date if it ever had a value.

It gives county and city councilors an inflated and false opinion of their own abilities and power.
Carnival is all it is.

Councillors in fact have no power and, are controlled from their respective party HQ. Their only function is a stepping stone to a Dail seat.


What is needed is a referrendum to change the system whereby the decision to have a presidential election or not is in the hands of two party leaders.

dulpit

yrreg0850 wrote: »

Councillors in fact have no power and, are controlled from their respective party HQ. Their only function is a stepping stone to a Dail seat.


What is needed is a referrendum to change the system whereby the decision to have a presidential election or not is in the hands of two party leaders.

Would that not necessarily make it easier for somebody of the high calibre (:rolleyes:) of Gemma O'Doherty to get onto ballot, increasing the circus of the election.

The council route has allowed quite a large number of candidates through over the past 2 elections:

• Dana (twice)
• Derek Nally
• Mary Davis
• Sean Gallagher
• David Norris

It's a pain, but does seem to allow candidates an element of vetting before getting onto the ballot. From what I've heard a lot of the FF/FG councillors are going to abstain rather than vote against motions in the councils when nominations come up, so there should be a few nominated this time around too.

VinLieger

dulpit wrote: »

Would that not necessarily make it easier for somebody of the high calibre (:rolleyes:) of Gemma O'Doherty to get onto ballot, increasing the circus of the election.

The council route has allowed quite a large number of candidates through over the past 2 elections:

• Dana (twice)
• Derek Nally
• Mary Davis
• Sean Gallagher
• David Norris

It's a pain, but does seem to allow candidates an element of vetting before getting onto the ballot. From what I've heard a lot of the FF/FG councillors are going to abstain rather than vote against motions in the councils when nominations come up, so there should be a few nominated this time around too.

Hardly stellar choices there, kinda proves the point about the councillor route making the whole thing a circus

dulpit

VinLieger wrote: »

Hardly stellar choices there, kinda proves the point about the councillor route making the whole thing a circus

So what's the alternative? Making it just Oireachtas selection will reduce nominees significantly, and if you allow other routes (e.g. a certain number of nominating signatures from the general public) would broaden the circus significantly.

VinLieger

dulpit wrote: »

So what's the alternative? Making it just Oireachtas selection will reduce nominees significantly, and if you allow other routes (e.g. a certain number of nominating signatures from the general public) would broaden the circus significantly.

Increase the county councils required?