So Michael D IS running again!

ligerdub

seamus wrote: »

I'm a little surprised Gallagher and whatshisface are still seeking nominations tbh.

I think it would have been taken for granted that, "Hey, I'm a businessman who you know from TV" would be a sure fire way to kill any election campaign after Trump's farce.

Yeah......what was he thinking running for office, such a stupid move? Oh wait, he won!

I know it's tough and all, and despite what the plethora of prominent news media outlets would have people believe, he won. The sky hasn't fallen in either.

Get over it.

Capt'n Midnight

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

I just rewatched the Sean gallagher frontline debate. It’s up on YouTube.

He hasn’t a hope.

Always reminded me of that Ralph Wiggum video.

“If you look closely you can actually pinpoint the exact moment his heart breaks in two.”
- Bart Simpson


Besides any taint of FF means a candidate will be automatically rejcted by half the electorate.


Pretty much the only way someone endorsed by FF could win is if they already had a good chance of winning without FF because they were truly independent. The days where Brian Lenihan was lined up for a cushy "retirement" in the park are long gone. He got the most first preferences but lost out because he didn't get transfers.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I think SF might decide not to run. I think Higgins has it and Gallagher will get great self promotion mileage out of it. The lad had his campaign website up months ago. Pretending he was thinking about it was to build suspense. Does any one really care that much? He's hardly a household name.

I thought SF didn't do u-turns, and they have already said they will have a candidate.

pixelburp

ligerdub wrote: »

Yeah......what was he thinking running for office, such a stupid move? Oh wait, he won!

I know it's tough and all, and despite what the plethora of prominent news media outlets would have people believe, he won. The sky hasn't fallen in either.

Get over it.

This isn't the thread for it, but Trumps tenure has not proven to be a success by any reasonable political metric (or an economic or social one tbh), or indeed acts as some proof positive that rich businessmen running for political office is a Good Idea™

It's an ego trip for these type of million/billion-aires, and if it isn't that it's a scam to basically make themselves even richer and more powerful - whether it's Donald Trump or Sean Gallagher. So yeah, I think Gallagher is misplacing the mood a little and peoples' appetite for a businessman in charge.

ligerdub

pixelburp wrote: »

This isn't the thread for it, but Trumps tenure has not proven to be a success by any reasonable political metric (or an economic or social one tbh), or indeed acts as some proof positive that rich businessmen running for political office is a Good Idea™

It's an ego trip for these type of million/billion-aires, and if it isn't that it's a scam to basically make themselves even richer and more powerful - whether it's Donald Trump or Sean Gallagher. So yeah, I think Gallagher is misplacing the mood a little and peoples' appetite for a businessman in charge.

Your opinion, and I consider it incorrect. We'll leave it there.

We can also forget the ego trip cliche too. While it's not an incorrect statement, it's no different in my opinion to the likes of Varadkar, Obama, Trudeau, Cameron and many other elected political leaders that I can recall. Absolutely every single one of them is filled with ego, it's just it tends to be less explicit than the celebrity entrepreneur type, and that the ego of Obama and Trudeau is more appealing to the media types who are happy enough to promote their message. These guys are happy to jump on the topical sympathy vote du jour and make themselves look great to the masses. Their principles change with the tide. It's equally self serving and to be honest far more nauseating to me.

If you are leading your country under the age of 45 chances are you have a high level of devious ways and fond of scheming.

I also consider using one or two examples that fall neatly into a category and using that to represent absolutely everyone that falls into that class, to be a pretty stupid argument (I'm not accusing you directly of that, but others have done this).

Water John

No doubt Sf will run a candidate. It will be part of the overall strategy of growing the party. In ways FG and FF have left a political vacuum for them to walk into.

Hotblack Desiato

VinLieger wrote: »

Gemma's latest addition to what the presidency is about

https://twitter.com/gemmaod1/status/1034572886248443910

What????

One of the comments:

Gemma, being the President of Ireland is not the same as being Batman or James Bond. It would make things more interesting to be sure, but this type of nonsense just continues to highlight the facts that you hvae no idea what the office is for. Morto for you.

Muahahaha

blackwhite wrote: »

With the way things are going it almost seems like there's some one-upsmanship going on between a few of the former "dragons".

Certainly gives the appearance of being more ego-fueled than anything else.

The cynic in me thinks the three of them are acting in tandem. Peter Casey announced his candidacy and in his statement he attacked Higgins on his salary, his age (thinly veiled) and him going to Castros funeral. He comes across as a stalking horse for Gallagher & Duffy. He has already said he is not certain that he could beat the two other "Dragons" which would beg the question why he thinks he could beat Higgins.

Otherwise Higgins is going to be attacked in this campaign on his age. Rather than attacking his actual age of 77 it will be attacked by forcing him into explaining how his public engagements as President went as follows:-

2012- 527
2013- 417
2014- 435
2015- 415
2016- 372
2017- 306

The above will be spun by his opponents as evidence that he is slowing down in the amount of work he does, ergo he is too old for the job. They cant come out and directly say that but they can ask why was he working almost twice as hard in 2012 than 2017 and leave people to draw their own conclusions.

Loafing Oaf

SNIP. No more nonsense please.

blackwhite

Muahahaha wrote: »

The cynic in me thinks the three of them are acting in tandem. Peter Casey announced his candidacy and in his statement he attacked Higgins on his salary, his age (thinly veiled) and him going to Castros funeral. He comes across as a stalking horse for Gallagher & Duffy. He has already said he is not certain that he could beat the two other "Dragons" which would beg the question why he thinks he could beat Higgins.

Otherwise Higgins is going to be attacked in this campaign on his age. Rather than attacking his actual age of 77 it will be attacked by forcing him into explaining how his public engagements as President went as follows:-

2012- 527
2013- 417
2014- 435
2015- 415
2016- 372
2017- 306

The above will be spun by his opponents as evidence that he is slowing down in the amount of work he does, ergo he is too old for the job. They cant come out and directly say that but they can ask why was he working almost twice as hard in 2012 than 2017 and leave people to draw their own conclusions.

The public engagement stats are interesting - I hadn’t seen them before TBH. Can certainly see them being spun against Higgins like you suggest.

500+ engagements is a crazy number - I couldn’t imagine doing that, and I’m in my 30s!

You don’t have similar numbers for McAleese or Robinson? Would be an interesting comparison if nothing else

Sad Professor

Casey was very unconvincing on radio this morning. Like the other Trump wannabes, I have a hard time believing he really wants the job. When Miriam asked what differentiated him from the other reality tv stars running for the presidency, he had no answer.

James Brown

ligerdub wrote: »

Your opinion, and I consider it incorrect. We'll leave it there.

We can also forget the ego trip cliche too. While it's not an incorrect statement, it's no different in my opinion to the likes of Varadkar, Obama, Trudeau, Cameron and many other elected political leaders that I can recall. Absolutely every single one of them is filled with ego, it's just it tends to be less explicit than the celebrity entrepreneur type, and that the ego of Obama and Trudeau is more appealing to the media types who are happy enough to promote their message. These guys are happy to jump on the topical sympathy vote du jour and make themselves look great to the masses. Their principles change with the tide. It's equally self serving and to be honest far more nauseating to me.

If you are leading your country under the age of 45 chances are you have a high level of devious ways and fond of scheming.

I also consider using one or two examples that fall neatly into a category and using that to represent absolutely everyone that falls into that class, to be a pretty stupid argument (I'm not accusing you directly of that, but others have done this).

Where a politician can have social policy issues they'd like to address, for better or worse, what has the Presidency got? If a person wants to make a difference, the Presidency isn't the route to take.
Gallagher is in this for the prestige and it will grease some wheels for him. His savvy business man solves everything approach is a con and it's played out.

I agree, it's possible the dragons are working together. Two will likely pull out hoping votes will transfer. Trying to make a big scandal out of the presidency, 'drain the swamp'? What a joke and imagine any of these people in the office? Their only hope is low turn out.

seamus

ligerdub wrote: »

Yeah......what was he thinking running for office, such a stupid move? Oh wait, he won!

I know it's tough and all, and despite what the plethora of prominent news media outlets would have people believe, he won. The sky hasn't fallen in either.

Get over it.

Yeah, that's not the point.

Regardless of your personal belief, the overall feeling, especially this side of the Atlantic, is that Trump's election was a complete shambles and as a president he's a complete mess.

Again, your opinion of Trump is irrelevant. Even the facts are irrelevant tbh. That is the overall sentiment about him here.

For about 15/20 years there were lots of rumblings in many countries that we should be electing businesspeople to run countries like businesses, rather than electing politicians to run them like bureaucracies. People were saying Michael O'Leary should run for government, he'd whip the HSE into shape.

Now Trump has gotten in. And the attitude has shifted. People feel now that a businessman is clearly in over his head politically, and there is a fundamental conflict between the inherent selfishness required to be a businessman and the social conscience required to be a politician.

So there will be little to no appetite for a businessman in the Áras. Because people don't want a repeat over here of what we've seen in the US.

Some people do, but they're a tiny, tiny minority.

"I'm an entrepreneur, and I know about business" is no longer considered the tagline of a smart, well-rounded and hard working person. It is now seen as the calling-card of corrupt con-artists.

James Brown

Broadband is a great example. 2018 and parts of the country don't have access to it because there's no profit in it. This is were the business approach falls down. Providing a decent quality of life for the public in the business government is in. In any case, how this or any social policy change carries over into the Presidency is beyond me.

Edgware

seamus wrote: »

Yeah, that's not the point.

Regardless of your personal belief, the overall feeling, especially this side of the Atlantic, is that Trump's election was a complete shambles and as a president he's a complete mess.

Again, your opinion of Trump is irrelevant. Even the facts are irrelevant tbh. That is the overall sentiment about him here.

For about 15/20 years there were lots of rumblings in many countries that we should be electing businesspeople to run countries like businesses, rather than electing politicians to run them like bureaucracies. People were saying Michael O'Leary should run for government, he'd whip the HSE into shape.

Now Trump has gotten in. And the attitude has shifted. People feel now that a businessman is clearly in over his head politically, and there is a fundamental conflict between the inherent selfishness required to be a businessman and the social conscience required to be a politician.

So there will be little to no appetite for a businessman in the Áras. Because people don't want a repeat over here of what we've seen in the US.

Some people do, but they're a tiny, tiny minority.

"I'm an entrepreneur, and I know about business" is no longer considered the tagline of a smart, well-rounded and hard working person. It is now seen as the calling-card of corrupt con-artists.

After the mess in Ryanair you never hear anyone say " we should get Michael O Leary to run the health service etc"

pixelburp

Precisely: I'd lost track of the number of times over the years I'd read think-pieces or posts on discussion boards extolling the genius of putting 'successful' businessmen in charge of government; usually followed by some prattle about sorting out the inefficiency or corruption within public departments. Michael O'Leary was usually the go-to in Irish politics for whipping our services into shape. The silence from these quarters since November 2016 is deafening.

The reality is that giving an already wealthy and connected businessmen the keys to the kingdom - shock horror - results in feathered nests, and often even more corruption because those connections allow for easier & greater strokes / nepotism (and yes, IMO in the case of Trump it has resulted in less efficiency, not more, many US departments remain understaffed and/or disorganised).

Of course, it's all arguably irrelevant, given how little legislative power the Irish President possesses, but that's not to say the canny businessman couldn't leverage the influence and stature of the Office into business trips paid for by the taxpayer, giving preference or opening doors for friends & family - and so on.

eastwest

Edgware wrote: »

After the mess in Ryanair you never hear anyone say " we should get Michael O Leary to run the health service etc"

You'd have to ask of Gallagher, what has he dome for humanity in the last seven years, or did his public service ethos disappear when he failed to win?

blanch152

eastwest wrote: »

You'd have to ask of Gallagher, what has he dome for humanity in the last seven years, or did his public service ethos disappear when he failed to win?

You could ask the same of Higgins, and arguably by eulogising the likes of Castro and Chavez, Higgins has actually caused a lot of damage to humanity.

eastwest

blanch152 wrote: »

You could ask the same of Higgins, and arguably by eulogising the likes of Castro and Chavez, Higgins has actually caused a lot of damage to humanity.

Separate argument though. Gallagher is running for the second time, so what has he done since he was rejected to make us feel better about voting for him?

Kermit.de.frog

How many pensions in Michael d Higgins entitled to upon retirement? 4? 5?

I heard, though I don't know, that it adds up to in excess of €1m. Is that true?

Some racket eh?

seamus

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

I heard, though I don't know, that it adds up to in excess of €1m. Is that true?

Over several years, definitely.

It's not exactly something to attack him over. It's not like he set the pensions up, he automatically gets them as part of the system. It's a ridiculous system, and at least he's had the good grace to refuse his Oireachtas pension while in the Áras.

blanch152

eastwest wrote: »

Separate argument though. Gallagher is running for the second time, so what has he done since he was rejected to make us feel better about voting for him?

They are both running for election for the second time.

Higgins has arguably worsened the state of humanity.

Gallagher has done nothing good or bad for humanity.

That puts Gallagher ahead.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

You could ask the same of Higgins, and arguably by eulogising the likes of Castro and Chavez, Higgins has actually caused a lot of damage to humanity.

Higgins has done a lifetime of public service, that is a good enough distinction for me for him to be a candidate.

If his politics are of no hindrance to him dispatching his duties (which he has imo) what matters if he eulogises some of the achievements someone (he recognised the failings of both too) you don't like or think has contributed as much to humanity as they have harmed?
You are just getting pointlessly offended by his opinion. Why does the 'opinion' of a president have to match yours?

Most world leaders/activist can be shown to have harmed/helped humanity somewhere.

Turnipman

eastwest wrote: »

You'd have to ask of Gallagher, what has he dome for humanity in the last seven years, or did his public service ethos disappear when he failed to win?

If electing a president was about services to humanity then Adi Roche would have walked it 21 years ago. (And arguably ex-IRA member Marty McGuinness wouldn't have got over 240k votes in 2011!)

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Higgins has done a lifetime of public service, that is a good enough distinction for me for him to be a candidate.

If his politics are of no hindrance to him dispatching his duties (which he has imo) what matters if he eulogises some of the achievements someone (he recognised the failings of both too) you don't like or think has contributed as much to humanity as they have harmed?
You are just getting pointlessly offended by his opinion. Why does the 'opinion' of a president have to match yours?

Most world leaders/activist can be shown to have harmed/helped humanity somewhere.

The difference between my opinion on Castro and Higgins' opinion on Castro is that he is claiming to represent the views of the nation.

Both Chavez and Castro impoverished their people, neither deserve any praise.

James Brown

Turnipman wrote: »

If electing a president was about services to humanity then Adi Roche would have walked it 21 years ago. (And arguably ex-IRA member Marty McGuinness wouldn't have got over 240k votes in 2011!)

It should when comparing the likes of Gallagher to the office of President based on the merits of what exactly has yet to be determined.

Edgware

Panic is settling into the Pro Higginscamp now that we have a few to put it up to him. The left luvvies in the media don't like the idea their little man will be asked a few awkward questions

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

The difference between my opinion on Castro and Higgins' opinion on Castro is that he is claiming to represent the views of the nation.

Both Chavez and Castro impoverished their people, neither deserve any praise.

Not according to Kenny and Varadkar at the time, who said he was entitled to express his opinion.
Higgins eulogised some of their achievements and said/accepted they came at a cost.

You could say the same about many many world leaders, including some of our own.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Not according to Kenny and Varadkar at the time, who said he was entitled to express his opinion.
Higgins eulogised some of their achievements and said/accepted they came at a cost.

You could say the same about many many world leaders, including some of our own.

Ahern, Cowen, Haughey, their faults, as bad as they were, really don't compare to the damage caused by Castro and Chavez.

Some of the lads up North, though, they would compare.

James Brown

Edgware wrote: »

Panic is settling into the Pro Higginscamp now that we have a few to put it up to him. The left luvvies in the media don't like the idea their little man will be asked a few awkward questions

Gas. FF/FG are the lefties now?
Higgins would wipe the floor with any of them in a debate. Don't let your bias skew reality.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Not according to Kenny and Varadkar at the time, who said he was entitled to express his opinion.
Higgins eulogised some of their achievements and said/accepted they came at a cost.

You could say the same about many many world leaders, including some of our own.

Leo was fond of Trump I read, read his book. This was before the phone call.