Norris to throw his hat back in?

anymore

Mongarra wrote: »

He dropped out of the race because of letters or a letter he had written asking for special treatment (maybe a reduced sentence, leniency or some similar easing of punishment) for a very close friend convicted of a crime.

Has something new come to light to change this? If not, when the circumstances have not changed what makes his canditature more legitimate now than it was when he dropped out?

We all know that there is far more to his departure than this !

dvpower

Mongarra wrote: »

Has something new come to light to change this? If not, when the circumstances have not changed what makes his canditature more legitimate now than it was when he dropped out?

The continuing support of a large proportion of voters, as expressed in opinion polls, even since the recent controversy. It seems that it hasn't made much difference to their minds.

anymore wrote: »

We all know that there is far more to his departure than this !

Sure let the people decide then.

Zubeneschamali

anymore wrote: »

We all know that there is far more to his departure than this !

No, we don't. We have all heard rumours that there is more to come out, but we certainly don't know anything of the sort.

anymore

dvpower wrote: »

The continuing support of a large proportion of voters, as expressed in opinion polls, even since the recent controversy. It seems that it hasn't made much difference to their minds.


Sure let the people decide then.

Well before the question is put to the people, then this man's record should be examined but given the widespread censorship being applied on Norris's behalf by the media and the fact he himself departed the country after pulling out of the race without any comprehensive explanation or without giving the press an opportunity to discuss the withdrawal, then I am not sure how such an examination can take place. As I have said on the thread was locked, If David Norris was Jackie Healy Rae or some other rural TD, then the situation would be entirely different. The many accusations of homophobia that have been levelled at people who have been asking reasonable questions come close to being intimidation.

Fr Tod Umptious

dvpower wrote: »

The continuing support of a large proportion of voters, as expressed in opinion polls, even since the recent controversy. It seems that it hasn't made much difference to their minds.


Sure let the people decide then.

Fair enough but before then he needs to get the support of 20 TDs/senators or 4 local authorities.

And as I have stressed Norris is a political insider that should know how to do these things yet he is still at least 7 shy.

So there is no use telling us the 'let the people decide' when his own peers do not even support him.

Zubeneschamali

anymore wrote: »

Well before the question is put to the people, then this man's record should be examined

This is normally done during this thing we call an "election campaign".

Godge

dvpower wrote: »

Don't be daft.

you make an excellent rebuttal of my point:rolleyes:.

N8

Kinski wrote: »

Sheez, just let the guy run...the electorate should decide whether he's fit to be President or not.

I have read this now a few times – that this norris should be entitled to a nomination and let the electorate decide?

Huh?

Entitled on what merit?

He is a twaddle merchant, elected into the senate by a couple of his buddies in Trinity – but now because he is a dirty old man who professes he wishes he was abused as a child, an advocate of pederasty, and whom at one time had a partner who when they were lovers was convicted of child rape - all of a sudden he is the stuff of presidency?

Huh?

Am I missing something?

If this was the story of any other person other than a gay man in Ireland – they would be ran out of town but because he is gay we somehow think we should tolerate it?

I would think he should be removed from the senate for bringing it into disrepute.

As for his supposed popular support – where is it? It’s not to be seen because it doesn’t exist – it’s a media fallacy.

He has no popular support – that is why he has not achieved a nomination.

Godge

Deleted User wrote: »

Is that not the backbone of democracy? No matter how wrong it is?

We don't have a direct democracy like the Swiss where everything is put to a referendum.

We have a representative democracy where we democratically elect representatives to make decisions (look up a political systems textbook to learn more about the differences). We then get a chance every five years or so to make a judgement on their decisions and we either say they are good or they are bad and we vote someone else in or not. So just because 40% of people in an opinion poll (or two or three) think he should be nominated is not sufficient to determine the outcome.

Someone accused me of being daft when I used the example of Dustin the Turkey earlier and his likely support of 30%. Well, to help that person and others understand what I mean (I call it democracy for slow learners), I will give another example.

If you had an opinion poll tomorrow you would probably find that 70% of people agree that taxation levels should not be increased. A second opinion poll the following day would probably show that 70% of people agree that expenditure on schools and hospitals should not be cut. Does that mean that the Government should just go ahead and slash social welfare rates as that is the only bit of expenditure not in an opinion poll? Don't be daft to paraphrase someone else:).

walrusgumble

Mongarra wrote: »

He dropped out of the race because of letters or a letter he had written asking for special treatment (maybe a reduced sentence, leniency or some similar easing of punishment) for a very close friend convicted of a crime.

Has something new come to light to change this? If not, when the circumstances have not changed what makes his canditature more legitimate now than it was when he dropped out?

I would not vote for him my self. Don't get me wrong, i kind of like him. He use to be fun on Friday's on Newstalk (when it was not the Fine Gael FM it is now, but still a decent station) That Lucy Kennedy TV show does not make him out as a man of the people lark

He should never have dropped out in the first place, if he really wanted the Office. He should have stayed on to fight. Brian Lenihan Snr got into a load of crap yet he got the most first preferences. Norris could have had plenty of time and convinced people. The only issue I have with that incident was Norris using Oireachtas paper, it was wrong but not crime of the century.

He wants another shot because his ego has been massaged by an apparent large selection of the population who still want him (how many have a vote, i wonder). Still, that is not neccessarily wrong, he is fully entitled to do so.

His case might point for a debate on whether candidate requirements should be reformed ie not making it so difficult for various sections of society to run - instead require a set amount of citizen votes.

Funny enough its always the the human rights luvies whinging (christ I sound like a right wing nut - eek) - you know, Ivanna Bacik & gender quota -yet despite being given a golden opportunity in Dun Laoghaire with guaranteed surplus from the leader, the people rejected her, loads of time). Norris would never have got into Dail Eireann if he ever ran after getting approval from public as an independent. You can't blame representative democracy for that.

So for the life of me, please will a group of Norris's people explain (a) the contributions that he has given to society and what he stood for (excluding gay rights , sexy things like palestine, and joyce) (b) where this group is basing their views that he is a suitable candidate and what he can bring to the job


Jumping ship also shows that he can't make a decision and stick to it. Is it any wonder why the President does not have more power in the first place?

phantom_lord

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

But you have to have some sort of nomination process rather than let every man woman or child run for the election.

Mary Davis and Sean Gallagher are not political individuals and they have successfully made it on to the ballot paper, as did Derek Nally back 1997.

So what do you suggest, nominate based on a Indo opinion poll ?

Sure why not use a TV3 Expose text poll

10,000 signatures like the Oireachtas review group recommended about 15 years ago. It's a bit of a travesty that someone can so clearly be wanted by the public and yet denied a chance to even run.

So don't blame the system for this one.

Why not? It's the system that's the problem here.

phantom_lord

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Or do you suggest TDs, senators and local authorities just nominate people that are popular ?

Are you saying they should deny the public candidates that they want to vote for? I don't think that's a form of democracy most people subscribe to.

dvpower

Godge wrote: »

you make an excellent rebuttal of my point:rolleyes:.

You didn't make a point - some daft nonsense about a fictional character running:rolleyes::rolleyes:

dvpower

anymore wrote: »

Well before the question is put to the people, then this man's record should be examined...

Isn't that the point of an election campaign?

dvpower

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Fair enough but before then he needs to get the support of 20 TDs/senators or 4 local authorities.

And as I have stressed Norris is a political insider that should know how to do these things yet he is still at least 7 shy.

So there is no use telling us the 'let the people decide' when his own peers do not even support him.

I think I've answered this in response to some of your earlier contributions.
If 30-40pc of the people want him to run, yet less than 10pc of TDs and senators do, then there is a democratic deficit in the nominations process.

Callan57

Maybe he'll reappear as the Sinn Féin candidate ... now that would certainly liven things up

Hawk Wing 2

phantom_lord wrote: »

Are you saying they should deny the public candidates that they want to vote for? I don't think that's a form of democracy most people subscribe to.

There's a large amount of people who'd like to vote in the seanad elections aswell, where's the democracy in that, this buffoon wouldn't last 2 minutes in a real election

dvpower

Hawk Wing 2 wrote: »

There's a large amount of people who'd like to vote in the seanad elections aswell, where's the democracy in that, this buffoon wouldn't last 2 minutes in a real election

Where do you get that idea from? The opinion polls show that he would have a serious shot at the Presidency. That's a real election, right?

N8

dvpower wrote: »

Where do you get that idea from? The opinion polls show that he would have a serious shot at the Presidency. That's a real election, right?

Possibly from the fact he got to the senate via a few of his very very liberal buddies up there in trinity (not the most democractic way of getting to an elected office) - possibly added to the fact that any opinion polls are biased by the leadng of their questions?

Who does this "dirty old queen" think he is? Does he really think he is entitled to a nomination to the presidency of the country?

Where the now silent majority of representatives that seemingly back him?

Perhaps its his own self professed wishes he was abused as a child, his advocacy of pederasty, or his past partnership with a chap who was convicted of child rape whilst they were lovers - that has distanced him from most law abiding good living folk including those gay folk embarassed and reputationally damaged by the likes of him??

Perhaps he is worthy of nomination as you say - lets see the Catholic Church back him?

Ah sure he enjoys bottom sex lets have him as our president???

Give Ireland a break - he deserves thrown out of the senate at the very least and any other nasties in his life thrown out for us all to evaluate.

anymore

N8 wrote: »

Possibly from the fact he got to the senate via a few of his very very liberal buddies up there in trinity (not the most democractic way of getting to an elected office) - possibly added to the fact that any opinion polls are biased by the leadng of their questions?

Who does this "dirty old queen" think he is? Does he really think he is entitled to a nomination to the presidency of the country?

Where the now silent majority of representatives that seemingly back him?

Perhaps its his own self professed wishes he was abused as a child, his advocacy of pederasty, or his past partnership with a chap who was convicted of child rape whilst they were lovers - that has distanced him from most law abiding good living folk including those gay folk embarassed and reputationally damaged by the likes of him??

Perhaps he is worthy of nomination as you say - lets see the Catholic Church back him?

Ah sure he enjoys bottom sex lets have him as our president???

Give Ireland a break - he deserves thrown out of the senate at the very least and any other nasties in his life thrown out for us all to evaluate.

This is a repeat of the bertie Ahern story all over again - no matter how much information is brought out, we again have a small group of people with vested interests who keep saying there is no truth in this.
Maybe the irish people do deserve Norris -

dvpower

N8 wrote: »

Possibly from the fact he got to the senate via a few of his very very liberal buddies up there in trinity (not the most democractic way of getting to an elected office) - possibly added to the fact that any opinion polls are biased by the leadng of their questions?.

How exactly are the opinion polls that show Norris with substantial support biased in his favour?

Godge

dvpower wrote: »

I think I've answered this in response to some of your earlier contributions.
If 30-40pc of the people want him to run, yet less than 10pc of TDs and senators do, then there is a democratic deficit in the nominations process.

I have answered this point already - see below.

Godge wrote: »

We don't have a direct democracy like the Swiss where everything is put to a referendum.

We have a representative democracy where we democratically elect representatives to make decisions (look up a political systems textbook to learn more about the differences). We then get a chance every five years or so to make a judgement on their decisions and we either say they are good or they are bad and we vote someone else in or not. So just because 40% of people in an opinion poll (or two or three) think he should be nominated is not sufficient to determine the outcome.

Someone accused me of being daft when I used the example of Dustin the Turkey earlier and his likely support of 30%. Well, to help that person and others understand what I mean (I call it democracy for slow learners), I will give another example.

If you had an opinion poll tomorrow you would probably find that 70% of people agree that taxation levels should not be increased. A second opinion poll the following day would probably show that 70% of people agree that expenditure on schools and hospitals should not be cut. Does that mean that the Government should just go ahead and slash social welfare rates as that is the only bit of expenditure not in an opinion poll? Don't be daft to paraphrase someone else:).

N8

anymore wrote: »

This is a repeat of the bertie Ahern story all over again - no matter how much information is brought out, we again have a small group of people with vested interests who keep saying there is no truth in this.

Maybe the irish people do deserve Norris

you know you could be right - nice

dvpower wrote: »

How exactly are the opinion polls that show Norris with substantial support biased in his favour?

Go on now you have answered - show me the questions, their order, their summarisation, their commission and independency......


I think the lack of elected representative backing bar those either new to their constituenticies and not understanding of their electorate yet and some other newbie gifted senators (yet another elite) - this 'dirty old queen' never had any backing bar the media savouring the delight of upping their sales by opening the true dirty old man of the senate but having the need to build it up and bolster that ego that had this non nominate throw himself into the fray only to be opened up wide to the reality of who he really is

Norris is was and never will bea nominate nor is he entitled to by his choice of bottom sex

what a joke that PC tolerant drunk ireland didn't get the true flavour of this 'dirty old man' a long time ago

anymore wrote: »

Maybe the irish people do deserve Norris

+1 again

Gingko

He ain't the man for the job folks. He's a loose cannon as a mouth piece and over dramatic on the big stage. Not what's needed as president.

There has been a smear campaign against him before the race started with one Christian fundamentalist website in particular with a homophobic agenda.

However this said he did fudge the issue in the past re under age sex? Not good! Plus can anyone tell me if he did or did not say he would like to see Ireland rejoin the "Commonwealth"? Some confusion there?

I was keen on Norris in the past I have to say. He does have many good policies and he would be a peoples man for sure. But just not as president.

Scofflaw

N8, I think that's quite enough of the name-calling. Any further "dirty old queen" stuff can be saved for your mates in the pub.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Hawk Wing 2

Why doesn't he stand in Dublin West if he wants the people to decide if he is a suitable public representative, no problem standing for election there

dvpower

dvpower wrote: »

How exactly are the opinion polls that show Norris with substantial support biased in his favour?

N8 wrote: »

Go on now you have answered - show me the questions, their order, their summarisation, their commission and independency......

You made the claim that the opinion polls were biased in Norris' favour - I think its up to you to demonstrate how.

dvpower

Hawk Wing 2 wrote: »

Why doesn't he stand in Dublin West for the Presidency if he wants the people to decide if he is a suitable public representative, no problem standing for election there

FYP

Fr Tod Umptious

walrusgumble wrote: »

......
He should never have dropped out in the first place, if he really wanted the Office. He should have stayed on to fight. Brian Lenihan Snr got into a load of crap yet he got the most first preferences. Norris could have had plenty of time and convinced people. The only issue I have with that incident was Norris using Oireachtas paper, it was wrong but not crime of the century......

But he had little choice but to drop out because he was loosing support from the 15 independents that had already pledges their support for him.

He needed that support plus at least another 5, or the support of 4 local authorities, to even get the the same place as Brian Lenihan Snr.

Godge

I hear that David Norris is appearing on the Late Late Show on Friday. Ryan Turbidy is not renowned for asking any hard questions. The two questions I would like to see David Norris answer are:

(1) Does he believe that sex between a 40-year old and a 15-year old should be permitted in law and does gender make a difference in the answer? Simple straight yes or no to the first part.

(2) Does he believe that a politician in a position of power should use his influence to intervene (or urge others to intervene) in a judicial process on behalf of a good friend, close relative or partner?


Given his actions and his record to date, I don't believe that Norris can answer those two questions satisfactorily for me. I also believe that any answers he gives would not be satisfactory to the Irish people. In fact, the two issues go right to the heart of so much that has been wrong with this country for years - the abuse of children and the corruptness of the political process. He has black marks against him on two of the worst issues this country has faced.

Gingko

Godge wrote: »

I hear that David Norris is appearing on the Late Late Show on Friday. Ryan Turbidy is not renowned for asking any hard questions. The two questions I would like to see David Norris answer are:

(1) Does he believe that sex between a 40-year old and a 15-year old should be permitted in law and does gender make a difference in the answer? Simple straight yes or no to the first part.

(2) Does he believe that a politician in a position of power should use his influence to intervene (or urge others to intervene) in a judicial process on behalf of a good friend, close relative or partner?


Given his actions and his record to date, I don't believe that Norris can answer those two questions satisfactorily for me. I also believe that any answers he gives would not be satisfactory to the Irish people. In fact, the two issues go right to the heart of so much that has been wrong with this country for years - the abuse of children and the corruptness of the political process. He has black marks against him on two of the worst issues this country has faced.

He will fudge the issue again by using out dated classical English / Greek grammer as only a "Joycean Scholar" (self titled) can?

Can I add a number 3 to those questions? Does he want Ireland to rejoin the commonwealth?

Well, whats the point in answering questions if you, "don't believe that Norris can answer those two questions satisfactorily"?
Bias much? If you want to know the answers to those questions, surely you would want to open your mind a little bit? Whats the point in interviewing anyone if you already won't listen to what they have to say?

As for, "Simple straight yes or no to the first part." Dude. He's a politician. Absolutely no chance of that happening.

I actually think it'll come down to who backs him. If FF back him (as they're alluding to) I'd expect a very easy set of questions from Tubbers

anymore

Gingko wrote: »

He will fudge the issue again by using out dated classical English / Greek grammer as only a "Joycean Scholar" (self titled) can?

Can I add a number 3 to those questions? Does he want Ireland to rejoin the commonwealth?

I would like to him clarify if he accepts the claims made by journalist HLb in the Magill interivew. If he does not, then I would like him to specifically which of her statements are factually incorrect.

Son Of A Vidic

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

I don't get that ?

My post couldn't be any clearer.

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Norris never had the support for a nomination in the first place

Semantics, last time I checked he withdrew his candidacy, which indicated he was running surely?

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

so how is he giving two fingers to the man/woman on the street ?

Well if he re-enters the race, is he not declaring himself fit to run again? Would this not appear to be incredibly pompous of him? Considering the reason why he withdrew from the race?

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

By all accounts he is popular with the man/woman on the street at the moment

According to who?....You? I liked David Norris, I thought he was a gentleman. However his actions demonstrated he is capable of lowering himself like the rest of them. I found this to be very disappointing and any potential Norris voter I have spoken too seems to share this sentiment.

dvpower

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

According to who?....You?

The recent set of opinion polls.

Fr Tod Umptious

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

My post couldn't be any clearer.

Semantics, last time I checked he withdrew his candidacy, which indicated he was running surely?

Well if he re-enters the race, is he not declaring himself fit to run again? Would this not appear to be incredibly pompous of him? Considering the reason why he withdrew from the race?

According to who?....You? I liked David Norris, I thought he was a gentleman. However his actions demonstrated he is capable of lowering himself like the rest of them. I found this to be very disappointing and any potential Norris voter I have spoken too seems to share this sentiment.

But he withdrew form seeking a nomination when something came up raised questions about his judgement.
Opinion polls still show that he has popularity amoungs the public and there are now unsubstantiated reports that he may re-entry and try get his nomination.

How is that 'lowering himself like the rest of them' ?

On the contrary I think he did the right thing and withdrew when it was clear that he was loosing and going to loose more support amongst his parliamentary backers, rather than hanging on for dear life like our former Taoiseach.

Deleted User wrote: »

Well, whats the point in answering questions if you, "don't believe that Norris can answer those two questions satisfactorily"?
Bias much? If you want to know the answers to those questions, surely you would want to open your mind a little bit? Whats the point in interviewing anyone if you already won't listen to what they have to say?

As for, "Simple straight yes or no to the first part." Dude. He's a politician. Absolutely no chance of that happening.

I actually think it'll come down to who backs him. If FF back him (as they're alluding to) I'd expect a very easy set of questions from Tubbers

If there is any truth is this, and I don't think there is, then FF are really on a Kamikaze mission.

They pass over a fairly un-tainted Brian Crowley for the sake of backing Norris, who has already lost key members of his team and who apparently has more scandals in the closet yet to be revealed.

If Norris re-enters this race and gets a nomination he will crash and burn and could be out of the race again by election day.

dvpower

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

They pass over a fairly un-tainted Brian Crowley for the sake of backing Norris, who has already lost key members of his team and who apparently has more scandals in the closet yet to be revealed.

The difference is that if they would be facilitating Norris* not backing him, but they would have to back Crowley with all that goes with it (funding the campaign, running the campaign, asking their supporters to vote for him, agreeing with his policy platform etc...).
Big difference.

*which I doubt they will

Fr Tod Umptious

dvpower wrote: »

The difference is that if they would be facilitating Norris* not backing him, but they would have to back Crowley with all that goes with it (funding the campaign, running the campaign, asking their supporters to vote for him, agreeing with his policy platform etc...).
Big difference.

*which I doubt they will

That is very true, and they could get some sort of a PR 'bounce' from it by saying they are doing what the public wants i.e Norris in the race.

However if could go all south in a big way depending on how Norris's campaign may develop once he is properly in the race.

Zubeneschamali

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

That is very true, and they could get some sort of a PR 'bounce' from it by saying they are doing what the public wants i.e Norris in the race.

Plus, if Norris were to win, they get bragging rights: "their" candidate beat FG and Labour, FF are back! I don't think there are any other outsiders with as good a chance of actually winning at the moment, Norris's earlier shenanigans mean he has a lot of name recognition and headline power.

Would Norris be tainted by the association? I don't think so. Gaybo is obviously a crypto-FF RTE insider, a FF candidate by any name, and would have been tarred that way in a campaign. Norris is rather patently not FF's cup of tea at all at all.

Fr Tod Umptious

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Plus, if Norris were to win, they get bragging rights: "their" candidate beat FG and Labour, FF are back! I don't think there are any other outsiders with as good a chance of actually winning at the moment, Norris's earlier shenanigans mean he has a lot of name recognition and headline power.

Would Norris be tainted by the association? I don't think so. Gaybo is obviously a crypto-FF RTE insider, a FF candidate by any name, and would have been tarred that way in a campaign. Norris is rather patently not FF's cup of tea at all at all.

Norris will not win it, that is for sure.

His earlier shenanigans as you put it have put a great many people off, including myself.

The presidential race is one based on personalities rather than policies because the President cannot implement any policies.
Norris will take a huge beating from the other candidates based on what he has done and said in the past, sure look he has even had to pull out of the race once already, there is no way he could actually win the whole thing so stop deluding yourself.

anymore

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

That is very true, and they could get some sort of a PR 'bounce' from it by saying they are doing what the public wants i.e Norris in the race.

However if could go all south in a big way depending on how Norris's campaign may develop once he is properly in the race.

Well they backed the church so they may as well back norris.

Zubeneschamali

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

His earlier shenanigans as you put it have put a great many people off, including myself.

His support in opinion polls seems to have held up in spite of all the nonsense printed on the topic.

dvpower

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

[...] there is no way he could actually win the whole thing so stop deluding yourself.

... but the opinion polls don't support this view

Fr Tod Umptious

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

His support in opinion polls seems to have held up in spite of all the nonsense printed on the topic.

dvpower wrote: »

... but the opinion polls don't support this view

Oh here we go again

Have a look at this
Go to page 37 and look at the graph of Adi Roach's opinion poll performance from 18/09/97 to 30/10/97.

anymore

dvpower wrote: »

... but the opinion polls don't support this view

And the Sindo supports him including harris !
The kiss of death 1

dvpower

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Oh here we go again

Have a look at this
Go to page 37 and look at the graph of Adi Roach's opinion poll performance from 18/09/97 to 30/10/97.

Polls aren't infallible, but for every example you can provide of an election that didn't go as per the polls, I can show you 10 that did. That's why they commission them

Son Of A Vidic

dvpower wrote: »

The recent set of opinion polls.

I love these 'polls' that occur and yet I have never met anyone who has taken part in one. What methodology was employed? What was the sample size of the alleged polls, location ect?.............Actually, come to think of it who cares? They are never objective anyway, with their usual built in bias. Regardless, if you think a random poll represents the will of the people and gives Norris license to re-inter the race? Then you are very naive.

Sunnyisland

What are Norris people thinking ? He stepped down from the presidential race Because he wrote a letter to support his partner who was convicted of having sex with a minor,nothing has changed.So why bother.

dvpower

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

I love these 'polls' that occur and yet I have never met anyone who has taken part in one. What methodology was employed? What was the sample size of the alleged polls, location ect?.............Actually, come to think of it who cares? They are never objective anyway, with their usual built in bias. Regardless, if you think a random poll represents the will of the people and gives Norris license to re-inter the race? Then you are very naive.

Dont we have a Conspiracies forum for this kind of silliness?

unitedrover

Norris shouldnt get back in the race. He pulled out for various reasons so entering again will not do his profile any good. Can people trust him now? If we vote him in is he going to be the another Irish president to resign mid term.???