Has President Higgins overstepped the mark?

More of a realisation than a decision. When I was younger, I used the think I was unique. Then I realised I was just like most people.

Couple of examples……

If you look at Irish house prices. The very peak, was the week we completed our house purchase.

The week of maximum COVID infections. Guess who got it too for the first time?

Loads of other examples but they would be two of the biggies.

Well you did ask! 😝

52%. Not great is it.

He said himself there was only a handful that didn't agree with him.

Anyhoo, missing the point as usual. It's not if anyone agrees with him, it's if he should be pontificating.

Based on posters in the thread, it would be a lot more than 19% that said he went too far.

He is supposed to represent the 19% too is he not?

The US has a presidency that can be either Republican or Democrat - half the population adores him/her, the other half detests him/her. We've already been importing the US identity politics crap (even though we have a very different history to the US), we don't need to adopt their governance model.

Or we could go the whole hog and adopt their policing and healthcare model too. I'll be fine, I'll sit back and munch on popcorn. I just don't think it's the way to go.

That's right, and I didn't say half the country despises him. I said we don't need to adopt a model where that could or would become the case. He's publicly adopting political positions on topics like Castro, Israel/Palestine, neutrality, public spending on housing.

No matter how certain you are that your opinion is the only correct one on these topics, they are controversial topics with a political aspect. Even neutrality is not part of our constitution. Anybody adopting positions on one side of those topics is going to alienate a significant portion of the population, whichever side those positions fall on. Even a mere 19% strong disapproval of his attacks on Von Der Leyen probably means he's alienating about a million Irish people. Fine for a TD speaking in the Dail, not so much for a president where the role is supposed to be treated by all with respect and kid gloves.

People who happen to agree with MDH's stances should consider the flip side of the coin. Honestly, would you feel it's fine if a future Irish president was to come out condemning abortion and criticising the large sums spent by the government on social welfare? Like, no harm if (s)he's adopting positions on things like that? I wouldn't like it. I think most people who say it would be fine, would only be saying that because they know it's not likely something they'll be facing any time soon. Just my opinion.

I voted for MDH the first time. I didn't agree with some of his politics, but I voted for the person who would be better in a constitutional role that's supposed to be "above politics". Lesson learned. Next time I'll be voting based on politics. And if others do the same, that's how we end up with a US-type model.

Thing is, I'm pretty sure you'll find close to 19% who strongly opposes anything the president says. The role has been changing since Mary Robinson, that's the reality.

The role is written in the constitution, isn't really up for him to define.

Anyway, sound like he says things you agree with, which is fine for now but may not be so great if someone whose political views differ from your own is ever elected to the role.

Imagine if McAleese had used the role to express her somewhat traditional catholic views.....

This is the thing the MDH groupies don’t seem to grasp.

His wreckless, utterly egotistical behaviour will be cited by future presidents who will be free to “shoot their mouths off” with half baked rants, whenever they like.

He leaves a disastrous legacy.

Do we know what the question was that was put to people? Because I agree with MDH’s sentiments but I don’t agree that he was the one to deliver them without consulting with, and getting approval from, the Govt.

And guess what, if the Govt said hell no, bomb the **** out of Gaza, that’s what MDH is constitutionally obliged to say. If he has personal views he needs to keep them to himself or resign. It’s as simple and straightforward as that. Or else we change the constitution. It is unbelievably arrogant of him to put himself above the constitution.

Likewise, how can you defend his fawning adoration of the leader of the world’s largest paedophile ring? What is your opinion on this?

No, you’ve been continuously attacking posters who have been pointing out that Higgins is not worthy of the title of president.

You’re defending him so you must of the opinion that meeting the leader of the world’s largest paedophile ring, behind closed doors, for the fourth time, is a good thing. Why?

I'd say the friends would do/say anything to avoid the bitter personal attacks on our president every other night.

I wish he wouldn't meet the pope so much. It gives credibility to his criminal organisation. 4 times in 12 years is excessive to me. That said, I still think he is a superb president.

But you are defending the indefensible. That makes you as guilty as him.

40% of the same census claimed to be able to speak Irish.

Lot of anger building up here.

I wouldn’t hold anything personally against the little fella, but I do feel he is putting his snout into areas which at best could be described as ‘confrontational’ vis a vis his position as President.

I feel it’s a dangerous precedent to get into given the constraints of office.

Let the politicians do the politicking and you do your job, would be my advice.

You can holiday in Cuba after you leave office.

The little fella should be shooed out of office… going way beyond his remit.

Should retire to Iran.

I’d hate to be the poor civil servant reminding him gently of his role and the confines of it. His temper is legendary for all the wrong reasons. His cuddly old granddad persona hides a pretty awful man in a lot of ways.

The thing about a lot of those smug academic lefties is they’d be on the first train to the prison camp in any of the states they so admire.

It's clear his mind is going the same way as the rest of his body.

All the lefties hate Israel. The tired old trope of the Jews being industrialists.

Of course they're industrialists, the oil doesn't pump itself.

Any official correspondence of the President would presumably be releasable anyway under FOI unless it qualified for an exemption under one of the relevant provisions, e.g. if access to it "could reasonably be expected to affect adversely…the international relations of the State". Therefore the issue of leaking is a bit of a red herring but the media seem happy to run with it nonetheless.

Disgusting that he is writing a letter of congratulations to the Iranian President whilst the regime he presides over murders women for showing their hair.

NOT IN MY NAME, HIGGINS!