Who should have a right to stand for the Presidency?

In the context of your position about generalising about people you don't like or are easy targets for some sectors of society I hope the irony of the above comments are not lost on you.
Are you suggesting that such concerns are borne of resentment and bigotry rather than balance and a sense of fairness?
 
Purple said:
Are you suggesting that such concerns are borne of resentment and bigotry rather than balance and a sense of fairness?
Click to expand...

Its the sense of unfairness and imbalance that breeds resentment and bigotry.
I dont dislike anyone, I just think that people that have in fact been found not to be paying their fair share of taxes should bear most of the ire from a Presidential candidate rather than the people he perceives as not paying their fair share of taxes, especially if it is something he really cares about and especially if he is unable to substantiate his claims over what has already been substantiated by a legal authority of the State to which he wants to preside over.
 
Especially when that sense of imbalance is based on actual imbalance.
You can agree with the points he is making while at the same time asking him why he isn't talking about tax cheats. The constant attempt by the Left to invalidate the concerns of those who see waste and welfare abuse using tax cheat whataboutery is part of the reason we see loathsome people like Trump rise to the top.
It is reasonable and legitimate to call out welfare cheats, scroungers and criminals. It is dispicable that some of those people hide behind ethnicity and are willing to tar all of their own people with that brush to defend themselves.
 
Purple said:
The constant attempt by the Left to invalidate the concerns of those who see waste and welfare abuse using tax cheat whataboutery
Click to expand...

Im not trying to invalidate any concerns he is raising. As for tax cheat whataboutery, it was Casey who raised the issue of Travellers not paying their fair share.
If he has real concerns about this of course they should be discussed.

TheBigShort said:
I agree he is raising issues that need to be discussed.
Click to expand...

TheBigShort said:
Im not saying issues surrounding Travellers or our welfare programs should not be discussed, far from it.
Click to expand...

TheBigShort said:
I would agree that he has touched a nerve with some people and that it would be dangerous to ignore such views.
Click to expand...

I hope I dont have to keep repeating myself.

The only issue I have with Casey is whether or not he is genuine concerned about welfare dependency or Travellers or any of it. I suspect he is not. Because looking at his campaign literature, he has either inadvertently or deliberately omitted any reference to issues he is now raising in public.
Either this is a cynical ploy to whip up some votes or he is generally concerned about these issues and wants to use the office of President to raise these issues in the public arena.
If he is genuinely concerned, then he is wholly incompetent as he has omitted these issues from his campaign literature.
If he is that incompetent then its hard to consider his views as anything but rhetoric.
He is unsuited for President. He should, if he was genuine, put himself forward for the Dail on the issues that he has raised. If he gets a mandate from the people then his views, regardless of what I think of them, demand respect.
 
The media's efforts to trivialise any serious discussion and to highlight everything trivial make a big contribution to undermining the social contract.

Today RTE seem to think that the major issue in the Presidential debate, is why Michael D flew to Belfast, last week it was Peter Casey's views on travellers, the week before how often presidential expenses should be audited.

What aspects of the social contract need to be revised to deal with coming demographic change. Not mentioned.

Balancing the need to reward work with the need to support those unable to work. Not mentioned. Despite his views on this being one of Michael D's main political strengths.
 
TheBigShort said:
Not surprised.
Casey is currently 1/2 fav to receive lowest first preference votes.
By 'suspending' his campaign with a week to go he has effectively quit.
Click to expand...
A week is a long time in politics
Now 4/1 for lowest 1st pref, 5/1 to come second to higgins and as low as 25/1 for the win.
Ladbrokes have restricted bets on him to €28.15 (25 stg).

And word is Gavin Duffy may come out with something tomorrow evening

It's suddenly become interesting.

Higgins to get under 40% 1st pref at 66/1 looks very enticing
 
having a go at the travellers was a clever way of getting a few extra votes, lets face it, very few people like them and they only make up a tiny minority of the population, plus I doubt very many of them vote. having a go at people receiving welfare is not such a good idea and I think it will come back to bite him, the fact is a huge number of people are in receipt of a welfare payment in one form or another, so they are not going to be giving him their vote now. my money is still on Higgins to win it comfortable, cant say im a big fan of his but he is seen a safe pair of hands in the office of president, ie..he is not going to stand up and say something to embarrass himself or the country...and I think most people will vote "safe" on this one. anyway thats just my two cents worth.
 
How many untrue statements does MickeyD have to make before his coronation would be impacted? We know, for example, that his promise to be a one-termer has been jettisoned and his shifting Lear Jet explanations are, well, shifty. Does anyone care?
 
elacsaplau said:
How many untrue statements does MickeyD have to make before his coronation would be impacted? We know, for example, that his promise to be a one-termer has been jettisoned and his shifting Lear Jet explanations are, well, shifty. Does anyone care?
Click to expand...

How dare you? Don't you know he's on the right side of all the right on causes? And you bring up a stubburn thing like the truth? Have you no shame?
Truth is for mere mortals.
 
odyssey06 said:
How dare you? Don't you know he's on the right side of all the right on causes? And you bring up a stubburn thing like the truth? Have you no shame?
Truth is for mere mortals.
Click to expand...
Well said. Michael D is a socialist and all socialists are of high moral character.

Peter casey better be careful or Michael D will be waiting in the long grass for him... literally (sorry, couldn't resist).
 
PaddyPower must have their hands on a new poll.

Casey now 2/1 to come second (I'll be ever so happy with that as I've a few bob at 16/1, 12/1 & 9/1!). Value gone with that

Value bet now has to be Higgins 1st Pref 40%-50% 20/1 with Ladbrokes.

Whilst Higgins will win, it will be used by many to say send a message that the government must stop pandering to those who abuse social welfare, take everything and give nothing back.

With the Red C poll showing PBP and Solidarity at 0%, there's a certain change in the air.
 
despite the pole rating of 70% I cannot find one person that is boring for Michael D. Not like it's a strong topic of conversation but anyone I've spoken to has said they were not voting for him. I must move in strong circles so.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register