Can Norris be President?

Lenny Lovett

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Why? How will his occupation for the last 20 years impact upon how he acts as president? If anything it makes him more suitable because he will be familiar with most members of parliament.

Does that logic extend to a certain Bertie Ahearn too?

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Yes, because equal rights for homosexuals don't matter.

Did I say that? So you're saying all he focused on was equality for homosexuals? You're probably correct 'cos I heard sod all else from him. So, again, I say he did sod all for the past twenty years. Remind me again when homosexuality was decriminalised? And what he's been doing since or campaigning for since.

Deep Easterly wrote: »

Fair point. I am just speaking in general. I am no fan of Norris as I do find that he is a bit militant on the one issue. However, it would be good for the country if the president (whoever it may be) did have voice. For a start, it would give more purpose and substance to the office of presidency than is currently the case.

No Government here will ever allow the President to have much of a say for fear that the President would undermine them.

harney wrote: »

Not living in the country at the moment so I am out of the day to day crap, I don't see why he couldn't be president. I can't imagine he would be any better or worse than any other that we've had.

And that's the very reason we should be looking for someone who would be better than the others. Surely? Maybe David Norris could be. Maybe when he returns from his bolt hole in Cyrpus he'll be jind enough to tell us.

Lockstep

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Come on, guys. The office of president is a meaningless position. It doesn't matter who gets it. The only difference between Norris and the others is that Norris' election would actually annoy a couple of regressive homophobes. Given that there's no other issue to base my vote on, I see that as a good enough one.

(Unless, of course, someone would like to tell exactly how candidate A will be different to candidate B in their operation of the presidency?)

That's not how the presidency works. It's meant to be a neutral figure for the nation to rally around and someone to represent us on the world stage. Having someone there just for ****s and giggles runs an entire gamut of problems as it degrades the presidency to some sort of ****-stirrer.
The reason the presidency is largely ceremonial is to have a non-partisan head of state.

If you start putting forward sexuality as a valid issue to vote for someone, then it holds true in reverse.

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Well, I believe he holds the 1916 risers to be terrorists. Another reason to vote for him!

Not going to go down well at the Centenary.

Cookie_Monster

bijapos wrote: »

Btw who said that on the radio? It sounds like a bit of scaremongering spin.

It was mentioned on Coleman at large iirc.
I think the guy said it just as a point of interest as to what would happen. There was no malice or scaremongering in it IMO

Wolfe Tone

I cant see Norris being elected. Will the aul people vote for him?(considering they are the people who actually bother to vote)

I would be ashamed if someone like Norris became president. Someone who regards the founders of this state as terrorists and a guy who desperately wants to rejoin the commonwealth.

Biggins

IrishTonyO wrote: »

David Norris is far too outspoken to be president. As president he would have to be impartial in everything and keep his opinions to himself. I don't reckon he would be able to do this.

GOOD!!!

Maybe then we can have a President that can think for themselves and thus open their mouths without having to grovel and ask permission to speak.

REPSOC1916

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

I cant see Norris being elected. Will the aul people vote for him?(considering they are the people who actually bother to vote)

I would be ashamed if someone like Norris became president. Someone who regards the founders of this state as terrorists and a guy who desperately wants to rejoin the commonwealth.

I don't think Norris made that comment about the men and women of '16 but he has been associated with the Reform Group, which is a "ridiculous unionist ginger group" as the Phoenix Magazine describes them, and he has called on the 26 counties to rejoin the commonwealth something which would irritate Republicans and voters along the border.

Rubik.

Sunday Independent poll - who do you think should be the next president?

David Norris 28%

Fergus Finlay 20%

Micheal D Higgins 11%

Mary Davis 10%

Emily O'Reilly 9%

Mairead McGuinness 9%

Bertie Ahern 7%

Mary O'Rourke 6%

Fattes

The constitution prohibits the President from speaking of voicing an opinion on certain issues. Therfore he would have to keep his trap shut in relation to allot of issues.

Norris is a strange one. He is an intellectual who lives in the past and believes that the ideal world is one in which Leopold Bloom lives.

He has openly said that the 1916 leaders where terrorists. A number of those people where involved in the drafting of the constitution that he will be required to represent and enforce.

Personally I would not vote for him and it is based on a number of things, a number of years ago he wrote for one of the papers, The Herald I think. Somebody had challenged him in relation to his opinion on the war on terror. In his response he referred to himself as an elected representative of the Irish People, a couple of punters form Trinity is not what I would call the electorate!

He lives in a fantasy world of whimsical Gay Georgian Utopia! I do not believe his sexuality should have any bearing on the election campaign but I do believe his personal views and opinions only represent a very small proportion of the people of Ireland which makes him an unsuitable candidate to represent the country

Wolfe Tone

REPSOC1916 wrote: »

I don't think Norris made that comment about the men and women of '16 but he has been associated with the Reform Group, which is a "ridiculous unionist ginger group" as the Phoenix Magazine describes them, and he has called on the 26 counties to rejoin the commonwealth something which would irritate Republicans and voters along the border.

Yes he has. Take his times profile, that goes into his "oft articulated view that the men of 1916 were terrorists"

Should a man like that oversee the centenary of the rising?

REPSOC1916

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Yes he has. Take his times profile, that goes into his "oft articulated view that the men of 1916 were terrorists"

Should a man like that oversee the centenary of the rising?

It be like asking Eoghan "I've been politically consistent all my life" Harris or Kevin Myarse if that's his view.

Peppapig

Personally I don't care who the president is, as long as they do there job. However I would I like to see Norris elected as it would cause a stir up among the predominately homophobic catholic society we live in.

This is the only reason I would vote for him.

JonJoeDali

Peppapig wrote: »

Personally I don't care who the president is, as long as they do there job. However I would I like to see Norris elected as it would cause a stir up among the predominately homophobic catholic society we live in.

This is the only reason I would vote for him.

Aside from that off-the-cuff remark, what a great basis to vote for someone as president.

gbee

lynski wrote: »

David Norris is an honest, educated, brave Irish man, he would be a wonderful president for Ireland in the 20-teens.

Concur, if it comes to a vote, I will vote for him, for the reasons you've outlined, and I met him years ago whilst making a documentary.

REPSOC1916

Peppapig wrote: »

Personally I don't care who the president is, as long as they do there job. However I would I like to see Norris elected as it would cause a stir up among the predominately homophobic catholic society we live in.

This is the only reason I would vote for him.

Come on in this day and age calling Ireland a predominately catholic society is a bit of an exageration.

I'd vote for him if he retracts his position on Republicanism.

gbee

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Yes he has. Take his times profile, that goes into his "oft articulated view that the men of 1916 were terrorists"

But they were terrorists and lost. But that's another thread where I've already participated in.

REPSOC1916

Rubik. wrote: »

Sunday Independent poll - who do you think should be the next president?

David Norris 28%

Fergus Finlay 20%

Micheal D Higgins 11%

Mary Davis 10%

Emily O'Reilly 9%

Mairead McGuinness 9%

Bertie Ahern 7%

Mary O'Rourke 6%

I read an interesting article about SINDO polls written by a regular Politics.ie poster. Theyre done allegedly by an Australian group called Quantum and the poster reckons they're deliberately skewered.
http://irishpollingreport.wordpress.com/2010/09/05/quantum-engineering/#comment-24

Wolfe Tone

gbee wrote: »

But they were terrorists and lost. But that's another thread where I've already participated in.

Hahahahaha


Yeah, sure.

REPSOC1916

gbee wrote: »

But they were terrorists and lost. But that's another thread where I've already participated in.

It was an English pyrrhic victory. And as for labelling terrorists you're in a minority here. By your logic the American and French Revolutionaries were also terrorists.

Go back to England is my advice.

Peppapig

JonJoeDali wrote: »

Aside from that off-the-cuff remark, what a great basis to vote for someone as president.

Well as I said, I doesn't bother me who is president, the fact that Norris is gay would enrage many homphobic people in Ireland. Is it wrong that for me to want this? No.

On what basis do you vote for President?

timespast

Rubik. wrote: »

Sunday Independent poll - who do you think should be the next president?

David Norris 28%

Fergus Finlay 20%

Micheal D Higgins 11%

Mary Davis 10%

Emily O'Reilly 9%

Mairead McGuinness 9%

Bertie Ahern 7%

Mary O'Rourke 6%

I'd find Norris and Higgins an embarassment...... Mairead McGuinness ? surely not.

As for Bertie and Mary O'Rourke enough said.

If Norris stands I'll actively campaign against him.

Biggins

...If only Hume would run for the job...

gbee

REPSOC1916 wrote: »

Go back to England is my advice.

I come from an estate where car bombs went to the north, I'm not about to go to England.

REPSOC1916

gbee wrote: »

I come from an estate where car bombs went to the north, I'm not about to go to England.

Sure.

Het-Field

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Hahahahaha


Yeah, sure.

I recognise the seminal nature of 1916. It takes pride of place in amongst all the events which took place in the nation's fight for independence. It cannot be negated, as it set into motion a series of events which culminated in John A Costello's declaration of a Republic.

However, it must be noted that it was stimulated by events, and gave rise to events which could be classified as terrorist. These include

-Gun Running from Germany
-Irish Civilian death and injury in Jacobs.
-The abortive explosion to signify the start of the rising.
-The intention and attempts to liberate arms from the British by forceful means in the Phoneix Park
-The false imprisonment of British Citizen's at the GPO.
-The Rogerstown Boming (which took place outside of Dublin)
-Further British deaths outside of Dublin.

By any definition of terrorism, the above mentioned acts would fall within the definition.

I recognise that many of these men lay down their lives in the name of a cause which they fundamentally believed in. I recognise that 1916 was one of the seminal events which culminated in the Irish fight for sovreignty, and for a Republic. I recognise that the proclaimation of the Irish Republic could be construed as a precursor to both constitutions. However, I also recognise that acts were comitted, which cannot be condoned, and are quite reflective of contemporary international acts, which would be classifed as terrorism.

gbee

REPSOC1916 wrote: »

Sure.

Ah! You saw through me, clever man.

Wolfe Tone

Het-Field wrote: »

I recognise the seminal nature of 1916. It takes pride of place in amongst all the events which took place in the nation's fight for independence. It cannot be negated, as it set into motion a series of events which culminated in John A Costello's declaration of a Republic.

However, it must be noted that it was stimulated by events, and gave rise to events which could be classified as terrorist. These include

-Gun Running from Germany
-Irish Civilian death and injury in Jacobs.
-The abortive explosion to signify the start of the rising.
-The intention and attempts to liberate arms from the British by forceful means in the Phoneix Park
-The false imprisonment of British Citizen's at the GPO.
-The Rogerstown Boming (which took place outside of Dublin)
-Further British deaths outside of Dublin.

By any definition of terrorism, the above mentioned acts would fall within the definition.

I recognise that many of these men lay down their lives in the name of a cause which they fundamentally believed in. I recognise that 1916 was one of the seminal events which culminated in the Irish fight for sovreignty, and for a Republic. I recognise that the proclaimation of the Irish Republic could be construed as a precursor to both constitutions. However, I also recognise that acts were comitted, which cannot be condoned, and are quite reflective of contemporary international acts, which would be classifed as terrorism.

Would you file every war under your definition of terrorism?


Yes they can be condoned. Those men where heroes, and went out to die in the hope to inspire others. No other description for them other than heroes.

Het-Field

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Would you file every war under your definition of terrorism?


Yes they can be condoned. Those men where heroes, and went out to die in the hope to inspire others. No other description for them other than heroes.

Almost every war has acts of terrorism contained within them.

So you condone the killing of Irish Citizens who's views and acts were not in line with views of the volunteers ? That is terrorism in anybody's book. Of course you seem to condone that, and deem it justifiable.

REPSOC1916

Het-Field wrote: »

Almost every war has acts of terrorism contained within them.

So you condone the killing of Irish Citizens who's views and acts were not in line with views of the volunteers ? That is terrorism in anybody's book. Of course you seem to condone that, and deem it justifiable.

Death is the price you pay for treason.

vandammaged

I would vote for Norris no problem.

He might change the way Ireland feels about Gay People.

But Knowing Irish people and and we always vote the wrong person in.

I could see Ireland vote Bertie In cause that's prob whats going to happen.

Lenny Lovett wrote: »

I was listening to an interesting discussion on Newstalk yesterday and someone brought up an interesting question which never occourred to me. Can David Norris be President given his open homosexuality? It would bar him from visiting, or receiving visitors from, many Middle Eastern and African countries as homosexuality is still illegal in many countries.

Het-Field

REPSOC1916 wrote: »

Death is the price you pay for treason.

That is a sick statement.