So Michael D IS running again!

AGC

Jim2007 wrote: »

He was not on a state visit to Switzerland. And in such situations the visiting head of state is the responsibility of the embassy and as already pointed out standard protocol was followed. Any any given day in Switzerland we probably have between 10 and 20 heads of states in the country.

More BS digging for no good reason other than trying to find cause for complaint.

Point taken in Geneva, along with New York probably most visited city.

No BS digging from here but it is not just reserved for State visits. It also would have been the PMUN office and not the Embassy involved.

Who do you think picks up the tab when Modi, the Royals or Biden are in Ireland?

batgoat

Dr Brown wrote: »

He could only find a hotel room for 3k ? I don't buy it.

If he could only find a room for 500 Euro per night then fair enough, but 3k is just taking the piss.

Higgins is the very definition of a champagne socialist/limousine liberal.

We actually don't even know if it was paid for by the state or the organiser. So it's a pretty overblown scandal at moment... Also suspect he isn't particularly involved in choices of hotel.

dulpit

batgoat wrote: »

We actually don't even know if it was paid for by the state or the organiser. So it's a pretty overblown scandal at moment... Also suspect he isn't particularly involved in choices of hotel.

Yep, it's the Department of Foreign Affairs that does it.. Storm in a teacup comes to mind, and sour grapes from Gerard Craughwell.

jm08

Jim2007 wrote: »

Would you now? Well you were wrong. So how much more digging do you want to do???

Have you some sort of proof that the UN didn't pay for the keynote speaker's accommodation.

You also say that Switzerland has approx. 20 heads of state staying at any one time. Surely for security reasons alone they would have approved accommodation, all within the same area? Like when it comes to embassies, for security reasons they are usually all fairly close to each other - makes it easier to protect.

Dr Brown

batgoat wrote: »

We actually don't even know if it was paid for by the state or the organiser. So it's a pretty overblown scandal at moment... Also suspect he isn't particularly involved in choices of hotel.

The fact that Higgins office has remained silent indicates that the state did pay for the hotel.

eastwest

Dr Brown wrote: »

The fact that Higgins office has remained silent indicates that the state did pay for the hotel.

I'm not sure it does. A little bit of 1+1=3?

AGC

Dr Brown wrote: »

The fact that Higgins office has remained silent indicates that the state did pay for the hotel.

Why would they? The president can’t be FOI’d so why would this non story warrant a reply over many that could have been in the past.

Loafing Oaf

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Any sign of any of the bookies offering odds on this election. Usually the solidest indication of where the land lies in any political contest...

Well PP have finally got the finger out http://www.paddypower.com/politics?tab=ireland

MDH 1/5, which is verging on foregone conclusion but not quite there. My money's on Mattress Mick.:P

Sierra Oscar

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Well PP have finally got the finger out http://www.paddypower.com/politics?tab=ireland

MDH 1/5, which is verging on foregone conclusion but not quite there. My money's on Mattress Mick.:P

Not bad odds for Sean Gallagher at 16 / 1 considering the latest speculation is that he is set to enter the race in the coming days.

I doubt he would enter unless he has done significant polling to show he can win it.

This expenses stuff could do serious damage to Higgins if it gets traction in September.

eastwest

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

Not bad odds for Sean Gallagher at 16 / 1 considering the latest speculation is that he is set to enter the race in the coming days.

I doubt he would enter unless he has done significant polling to show he can win it.

This expenses stuff could do serious damage to Higgins if it gets traction in September.

It won't. Anyone with an ounce of sense will know that the President doesn't book hotel rooms for official business. He doesn't drove the car either, or change the oil in it. Or cook for visitors to the Aras.

pixelburp

It's an obvious attempt to generate controversy on what has amounted to the least controversial and broadly well-liked politician on the island. In a world of Trump and political leaders upending the kind of basic decency we used to expect of statesmen, some outlets are clearly gagging to stir up some bad faith towards Higgins. 3000 is a ludicrous amount for a hotel, but I'm not going to hold the President personally responsible, or indulge in selective outrage because - gasp - people at the highest levels of government get the good stuff.

This thread was only started because of various chips on shoulders over Higgins' past, but as President the man has operated with tact, grace and for all the blather about his age & running again, his seniority and generally positive demeanour has given him a "nice grandad" image that has gone down well with the public at large. It'll take a lot to undo that, short of evidence Higgins ... I dunno, eats puppies for breakfast.

honeybear

Gemma O Doherty also wants to run

dulpit

honeybear wrote: »

Gemma O Doherty also wants to run

Who?

Strazdas

dulpit wrote: »

Who?

She's a freelance journalist : not that well known though

Sad Professor

Part of the reason she's not better known is because of the Irish media's radio silence in response to her firing from the Indo for poking around too much.

I wouldn't vote for her personally, but it would be fun to watch the squirming if she got on the ballot and had to be given a platform.

dulpit

Sad Professor wrote: »

Part of the reason she's not better known is because of the Irish media's radio silence in response to her firing from the Indo for poking around too much.

I wouldn't vote for her personally, but it would be fun to watch the squirming if she got on the ballot and had to be given a platform.

I've taken a look at some of her tweets. It comes across that she's a little bit conspiracy-related. She seems to be anti-vax, anti-wind farms and bizarrely has been endorsed by Jim Corr. I see this going well...

Hurrache

Sad Professor wrote: »

but it would be fun to watch the squirming

The squirming would be from everyone watching in embarrassment.

Sad Professor

dulpit wrote: »

I've taken a look at some of her tweets. It comes across that she's a little bit conspiracy-related. She seems to be anti-vax, anti-wind farms and bizarrely has been endorsed by Jim Corr. I see this going well...

Have you seen the tweets or are you going on what others are saying? Because from what I've seen, the evidence for her being anti-vax is pretty pathetic. But yeah she does seem to have gone a bit conspiratorial.

Turnipman

eastwest wrote: »

It won't. Anyone with an ounce of sense will know that the President doesn't book hotel rooms for official business. He doesn't drove the car either, or change the oil in it. Or cook for visitors to the Aras.

So what does he do? (In additions to writing and delivering long-winded speeches that, more often than not, bore their listeners to sleep, and supporting the Galway hurlers/footballers/soccer players and Connacht rugby from the VIP seats?)

One of the main reasons that I'm not protesting about the Pope's visit is that I'm aware that the poor man will probably have to visit the Aras and sit through an interminable b0llocking from the great Castro supporter - a fate worse than death!)

blanch152

dulpit wrote: »

I've taken a look at some of her tweets. It comes across that she's a little bit conspiracy-related. She seems to be anti-vax, anti-wind farms and bizarrely has been endorsed by Jim Corr. I see this going well...

Another anti-vax candidate?

We already have the SF anti-vaxxer. The only good thing is that the anti-vax position would likely be completely discredited in a campaign.

Annasopra

Jim2007 wrote: »

Would you now? Well you were wrong. So how much more digging do you want to do???

Sorry what are you talking about? What evidence is there on any of this 3k hotel room

Annasopra

honeybear wrote: »

Gemma O Doherty also wants to run

She is against choice in pregnancy, vaccinations and trans rights. On that basis its a definite no from me.

eastwest

Hurrache wrote: »

The squirming would be from everyone watching in embarrassment.

If she runs, she'll be open to the kind of scrutiny and analysis that she has avoided up to now. I kinda feel sorry for her, she'll be discredited and rubbished as soon as she puts a policy position together. A lot of conspiracy theorists tend to be vulnerable people.

Sad Professor

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

She is against choice in pregnancy, vaccinations and trans rights. On that basis its a definite no from me.

As president, she would have no ability to impact those things. Or any of the things she claims she wants to do for that matter..

She doesn't want to be president, she just wants to use the platform of a presidential election to attack the establishment.

Anyway, I don't think she has a chance in hell of getting the 20 nominations from TDs required to get on the ballot.

VinLieger

Much like duffy and the rest of the gombeens throwing their hats into the ring she has no clue of the actual constitutional role of the president and what she is allowed/not allowed do and say

realdanbreen

VinLieger wrote: »

Much like duffy and the rest of the gombeens throwing their hats into the ring she has no clue of the actual constitutional role of the president and what she is allowed/not allowed do and say

Are you suggesting the position should only be open to a constitutional lawyer?

VinLieger

realdanbreen wrote: »

Are you suggesting the position should only be open to a constitutional lawyer?

No im simply pointing out the people running for it have not read the job description and are making wild claims about what they will do that directly conflict with it

blackwhite

realdanbreen wrote: »

Are you suggesting the position should only be open to a constitutional lawyer?

I don’t think it’s unfair to expect a potential candidate to have actually bothered to read up and understand what the powers & duties of the role actually entail.

If they want to run for election, surely a basic requirement is to understand what they’d actually be obliged to do if elected??

Bradlin

Gemma O'Doherty would be an excellent President.

She has no political allegiances and would not be afraid to ask the hard questions or upset the Establishment.

And she's not a pygmy that deviously gave an undertaking to only remain in office for 7 years, if elected. Only a seasoned politician could be cynical enough to renege on a commitment like that, with an embarrassing explanation that "I have more work to do".

Disgusting.

VinLieger

Bradlin wrote: »

Gemma O'Doherty would be an excellent President.

She has no political allegiances and would not be afraid to ask the hard questions or upset the Establishment.

And she's not a pygmy that deviously gave an undertaking to only remain in office for 7 years, if elected. Only a seasoned politician could be cynical enough to renege on a commitment like that, with an embarrassing explanation that "I have more work to do".

Disgusting.

Okay please explain how she will get around article 13.7 of the constitution to be able to do as you describe?

Bradlin

VinLieger wrote: »

Okay please explain how she will get around article 13.7 of the constitution to be able to do as you describe?

Do you think our current President got approval from anyone to say what he said about Fidel Castro?

Gemma O'Doherty wouldn't tolerate any crap from elected officials supposedly acting in the national interest.

She is exactly what this country needs right now.

AGC

Bradlin wrote: »

Do you think our current President got approval from anyone to say what he said about Fidel Castro?

Gemma O'Doherty wouldn't tolerate any crap from elected officials supposedly acting in the national interest.

She is exactly what this country needs right now.

She has to rely on those elected officials to get on the ballot paper

optogirl

Bradlin wrote: »

Do you think our current President got approval from anyone to say what he said about Fidel Castro?

Gemma O'Doherty wouldn't tolerate any crap from elected officials supposedly acting in the national interest.

She is exactly what this country needs right now.

While I admire Gemma's work on a lot of things, in particular the Mary Boyle cover-up, I couldn't bring myself to vote for an anti-vaxxer. It's just so dangerous.

Bradlin

optogirl wrote: »

While I admire Gemma's work on a lot of things, in particular the Mary Boyle cover-up, I couldn't bring myself to vote for an anti-vaxxer. It's just so dangerous.

What's an anti-vaxxer? Seriously, I have never heard that term before, and thought I was reasonably well read.

blanch152

Bradlin wrote: »

What's an anti-vaxxer? Seriously, I have never heard that term before, and thought I was reasonably well read.

https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/content/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-anti-vaxxer/

Bradlin

blanch152 wrote: »

https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/content/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-anti-vaxxer/

Thanks.

It would be the least of my worries in terms of whether to vote for her or not. She would have zero ability, as President, to influence things like this, but there are plenty of other areas in which she could shine a light, not least corruption in many of our highest offices.

It's time for a change.

Sad Professor

Is there evidence that she’s an anti-vaxxer?

optogirl

Sad Professor wrote: »

Is there evidence that she’s an anti-vaxxer?

She's shared stuff about the harm of the HPV on Twitter - in fairness she tends to present without comment but I just get a bit of a bang of tin foil hat from her

Sad Professor

optogirl wrote: »

She's shared stuff about the harm of the HPV on Twitter - in fairness she tends to present without comment but I just get a bit of a bang of tin foil hat from her

Yeah I’ve seen two tweets like that. Just links, one of them to The Journal. Certainly not evidence that she’s anti-vaxx.

Does anyone know what the anti-trans claims are based on?

Hurrache

Sad Professor wrote: »

Does anyone know what the anti-trans claims are based on?

Stuff like this




Then there's this

VinLieger

Bradlin wrote: »

Do you think our current President got approval from anyone to say what he said about Fidel Castro?

Gemma O'Doherty wouldn't tolerate any crap from elected officials supposedly acting in the national interest.

She is exactly what this country needs right now.

He most likely didnt get approval but that doesnt mean the government couldnt have acted on it if they wanted to or felt it was in the public interest. The castro comments obviously werent and due to how popular he is would have been a poor choice to act on by the government and Michael D likely knew he could get away with it for those reasons.


Still the president cannot do or say what they want and expect zero consequences due to how restrictive our constitution is on the president. The fact that so many like yourself are this blatantly ignorant of that fact i think is an unfortunate consequence of the trump effect where people are mistakenly under the impression due to how much it is in the news that the irish president is in some way comparable to the us one.

Bradlin wrote: »

Thanks.

It would be the least of my worries in terms of whether to vote for her or not. She would have zero ability, as President, to influence things like this, but there are plenty of other areas in which she could shine a light, not least corruption in many of our highest offices.

It's time for a change.

She would have just as much ability to influence vaccincation perceptions as she would anything else like corruption if she chose to.

Scary how willing you are to so easily to dismiss a very real public health issue just so you can "stick it to the man".

realdanbreen

optogirl wrote: »

While I admire Gemma's work on a lot of things, in particular the Mary Boyle cover-up, I couldn't bring myself to vote for an anti-vaxxer. It's just so dangerous.

Well maybe MichaeelD is an anti vaxer also , or anti loads of things. I mean he hasn't been asked to answer any questions for 7 years!

James Brown

Bradlin wrote: »

Gemma O'Doherty would be an excellent President.

She has no political allegiances and would not be afraid to ask the hard questions or upset the Establishment.

And she's not a pygmy that deviously gave an undertaking to only remain in office for 7 years, if elected. Only a seasoned politician could be cynical enough to renege on a commitment like that, with an embarrassing explanation that "I have more work to do".

Disgusting.

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.

VinLieger

realdanbreen wrote: »

Well maybe MichaeelD is an anti vaxer also , or anti loads of things. I mean he hasn't been asked to answer any questions for 7 years!

And in the case of an election he and everyone else will probably now be asked that very question.

Not really sure the point you are trying to make tbh.

Beechwoodspark

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.

He’s been pretty average/poor and loads of ppl can’t stand him.

But thankfully he’s being forced to campaign against his will and the people can hold him to account.

VinLieger

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

loads of ppl can’t stand him.

Zero evidence to support such a statement

Beechwoodspark

VinLieger wrote: »

Zero evidence to support such a statement

take it from me plenty of people can’t stand the sight of him.

There’s loads of ppl on this site who want him out ASAP.

You will see what the ppl think of him when the election is held. An election he desperately tried to avoid. Which says it all.

Sad Professor

Here is O'Doherty today denying that she's anti-trans and anti-vax.

https://twitter.com/gemmaod1/status/1031539680750325761

The claims to the contrary seem pretty weak to me. Out of context tweets in which she was attacking FG, Leo and their pseudo-liberal schtick, etc. That said, I still think this is a stunt and her anti-corruption agenda would be better served by running for the Dail than the presidency.

blackwhite

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

He’s been pretty average/poor and loads of ppl can’t stand him.

But thankfully he’s being forced to campaign against his will and the people can hold him to account.

Whilst there's lots of aspects of MDH's politics that I disagree with, and certain comments he has made as President that I'd disagree with, I can still see he's streets ahead of any of the potential candidates so far.


Do any of those who are so set against him genuinely think that he won't win comfortably? Are they really that blinded by their own dislike for him that they don't/won't see that the majority of people seem quite happy with him in office?

blanch152

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.

He is not a patch on either of the two Marys.