The Official After Hours Presidential Election Thread **POLL RESET 23/10**

efb

Sylas Lemon Thesis wrote: »

Did any of them have bofriends in their 30's when they were 15? Because I would like to see such men answerable

And if Mr Norris had written a letter of clemency for a priest could you say you would honestly have the same reaction?
Or what if it was Enda Kenny who wrote such a letter?

Plently of people write clemecy letters- my friends a barrister who's job it is to plead for clemency for his convicted clients- sex offenders included. This is part of the judicial process. The judge ultimately makes the decision.

efb

Sylas Lemon Thesis wrote: »

Did any of them have bofriends in their 30's when they were 15? Because I would like to see such men answerable

And if Mr Norris had written a letter of clemency for a priest could you say you would honestly have the same reaction?
Or what if it was Enda Kenny who wrote such a letter?

16 is also underage, but is 16 OK?

thebigbiffo

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

You know what's kind of annoying me. And I'll start this out by saying I do not condone a relationship between a 40 year old and a 15 year old, be they male or female, gay or straight.

But it strikes me that people have it in their head that Naswi was raping this teen in the context of "Holding him down, forcing the teenager to have sex against his will". There is a world of difference between that and what seemingly happened. Yes, what happened is still technically rape but it isn't as horrific as some people are trying to make out (Calling Norris evil and a kiddy-fidler for example; some people seem to be under the impression that Norris himself was holding down a 5 year old and helping his friend do the deed and then heading home to have a laugh about it over a nice glass of whiskey). This was two people in a relationship whose age were legally questionable and who morally went against what society thinks is acceptable.

Again, I'm not saying what happened wasn't morally wrong. It was. And the letter sending was stupid. But there are some people who are overexaggerating what has happened, are engaging hugely in hyperbole and making wild and dramatic statements which are only partially linked to reality.

EDIT:



This is what I mean. There's a difference between possible exploitation and the level of rape which some people are suggesting.

Firstly - I’m well aware of the difference, hence my use of the word ‘statutory’ before ‘rape’. I know it wasn’t a violent rape either. This guy sickens me all the same – he goes out to Palestine to help with a very oppressed, poor and vulnerable people and ends up using this position of power and influence to start shagging a nice supple 15 year old ass. Now, I’m no prude, but this behaviour is downright wrong. There are no ‘levels’ here – this is unacceptable behaviour. And what’s even more unacceptable is our head of state being an apologist for it…on official senate headed paper…and having more letter he refuses to publish. I’m not exaggerating: he’s a confirmed apologist for a man who took advantage of a 15 year old for sexual gratification. There’s no blurred lines here – it’s a fact.

dark crystal wrote: »

The likes of me?? That's a good one alright.

There are 13, 14, 15 year olds all over Ireland having sex and getting pregnant. Are you suggesting that all these people are being prosecuted? They aren't in most cases, because the sex was consensual, not forced.

Priests forced themselves onto young children, damaged them emotionally and physically, because they held a position of power. This wasn't the same situation at all.

If you bothered to look into what Norris is advocating, instead of buying into all the hysterical headlines, you might see there's actually some merit in what he's saying. Instead of criminalising these teenagers, he's saying there should be judiciary discretion in that grey area, where two teenagers under the age of consent have entered into a consensual sexual relationship, on a case to case basis.

I am liberal on this issue, yes, conservative on others, but calling someone a twisted deviant is just hyperbolic nonsense.

Wait? There’s 13, 145 and 15 year olds all over Ireland getting pregnant by 35 y/o + men? This is a national scandal and damn right they should all be prosecuted…but that’s not what we’re talking about here really is it? I’m not talking about priests who abused here - I’m making a comparison: if a priest was an apologist for a statutory rapist and on the record as condoning pederasty you’d call for his head? Go on admit it? you would wouldn’t you? But the same standards don’t apply to Norris because of his great liberalism…isn’t this true?

I’m not even bothering with rest of your post – we’re not talking about the admittedly ridiculous Irish stat rape laws, we’re talking about his support of a man who took advantage of a 15 year old. I don’t go for headlines either, I go for fact.

Lord TSC

Firstly - I’m well aware of the difference, hence my use of the word ‘statutory’ before ‘rape’. I know it wasn’t a violent rape either. This guy sickens me all the same – he goes out to Palestine to help with a very oppressed, poor and vulnerable people and ends up using this position of power and influence to start shagging a nice supple 15 year old ass. Now, I’m no prude, but this behaviour is downright wrong. There are no ‘levels’ here – this is unacceptable behaviour. And what’s even more unacceptable is our head of state being an apologist for it…on official senate headed paper…and having more letter he refuses to publish. I’m not exaggerating: he’s a confirmed apologist for a man who took advantage of a 15 year old for sexual gratification. There’s no blurred lines here – it’s a fact.

It was more of a general statement on the constant wave of "OMG how can people vote for pedo Norris the rapist he should be hung!"

Again I say, yes, the behaviour was wrong. Yes, it was unacceptable for Norris to write what he did in an offical capacity.

But on the evil scale of evil, it's not at the top. It's high but it's not murderer or actual rapist levels, as some people are making it out to be

epgc3fyqirnbsx

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

It was more of a general statement on the constant wave of "OMG how can people vote for pedo Norris the rapist he should be hung!"

Again I say, yes, the behaviour was wrong. Yes, it was unacceptable for Norris to write what he did in an offical capacity.

But on the evil scale of evil, it's not at the top. It's high but it's not murderer or actual rapist levels, as some people are making it out to be

Well I agree with this, it's was wrong, very wrong imo, but not on murder or actual rapist levels.

It's enough alone that I wouldn't vote for him, it shows poor judgement. But what's worse is the fact he still isn't being upfront, sidesteps the questions and just wont present the rest of the ltters to be done with it.
That and the arrogance of the "great politcal comeback"
He's just not for me, I've always thought him a pain in the arse tbh, but still an admirable man for taking that case that in a lot of ways marked the start of a more modern Ireland

In any case this thread isn't just about him. I'll probably vote Higgins though I would be worried that he might lean to far to the left.
Although lets face it, all any of them'll be doing is shaking hands and hosting dinners and reading pre-prepared speeches

thebigbiffo

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

It was more of a general statement on the constant wave of "OMG how can people vote for pedo Norris the rapist he should be hung!"

Again I say, yes, the behaviour was wrong. Yes, it was unacceptable for Norris to write what he did in an offical capacity.

But on the evil scale of evil, it's not at the top. It's high but it's not murderer or actual rapist levels, as some people are making it out to be

Here – the letters and his statement on pederasty paint him as a man who has no issue with grown men having sexual relations with young boys. It’s not violent rape, it’s not murder, it’s not paedophilia (although it’s damn close) but it is utterly wrong and if he condones this behaviour people can rightly question what goes on in his own mind and whether this is the kind of people we want to represent us. This defence of him by the liberal set is pure hypocritical BS. If he was anyone else he wouldn’t have a chance (see ‘priest’ above) but yet we’re being told by the thought police of these islands that we should overlook such amoral thinking because he espouses their views. Pffffft. I actually quite like the man, but not a f’ucking chance should this guy be our head of state, it’s a joke he’s even nominated.

hooradiation

Ahh the liberal thought police strike again, those pesky swine.

efb

thebigbiffo wrote: »

Here – the letters and his statement on pederasty paint him as a man who has no issue with grown men having sexual relations with young boys. It’s not violent rape, it’s not murder, it’s not paedophilia (although it’s damn close) but it is utterly wrong and if he condones this behaviour people can rightly question what goes on in his own mind and whether this is the kind of people we want to represent us. This defence of him by the liberal set is pure hypocritical BS. If he was anyone else he wouldn’t have a chance (see ‘priest’ above) but yet we’re being told by the thought police of these islands that we should overlook such amoral thinking because he espouses their views. Pffffft. I actually quite like the man, but not a f’ucking chance should this guy be our head of state, it’s a joke he’s even nominated.

Young boys? Young men. Post pubescent males certainly ament young boys

And if a few 14/15/16 year olds wanna play with each others willies is that a crime???

epgc3fyqirnbsx

efb wrote: »

Young boys? Young men. Post pubescent males certainly ament young boys

And if a few 14/15/16 year olds wanna play with each others willies is that a crime???

Not with each others no. But a manin his thirties, then yep, definitely

efb

Biffo- in your opinion how young is too young?

Post puberty 1/2 your age + 7 works for me

Lord TSC

thebigbiffo wrote: »

Here – the letters and his statement on pederasty paint him as a man who has no issue with grown men having sexual relations with young boys. It’s not violent rape, it’s not murder, it’s not paedophilia (although it’s damn close) but it is utterly wrong and if he condones this behaviour people can rightly question what goes on in his own mind and whether this is the kind of people we want to represent us. This defence of him by the liberal set is pure hypocritical BS. If he was anyone else he wouldn’t have a chance (see ‘priest’ above) but yet we’re being told by the thought police of these islands that we should overlook such amoral thinking because he espouses their views. Pffffft. I actually quite like the man, but not a ******* chance should this guy be our head of state, it’s a joke he’s even nominated.

See, that's what I'm talking about. "Young boys" implies something completly different than what Norris himself actually did. Norris is talking about teenagers, not young boys. The "young boys" comment implies he thinks its ok for people to engage in sexual relations with pre-teens which is not what he's saying.

Are his views still wrong? IMO, yes. But once again, people criticising him are having to revert to hyperbole and dramatic statements. Which is weird, cause there's perfectly legitamte reasons and things to call him up on.

And it's not a thought police thing. Feel free to think the sky is green for all I care. I'm just commenting on how it annoys me. I'm not trying to convince you to vote for Norris, and I'm not even particularly defending what he's done. But if you're going to give out about someone, let's not ruin the discussion by misrepresenting things.

thebigbiffo

efb wrote: »

Biffo- in your opinion how young is too young?

Post puberty 1/2 your age + 7 works for me

It's too complicated an issue tbh to get into here (but in general, i believe any one under 16/17 should be protected from the sexual advances of people over that age - but it's what that age should be as set definitively in law that's the issue ).

what i do know is that a 35 y/o charity worker in a poor country should not be taking sexual advantage of a 15 year old he's there to protect - this is clear cut. even if this guy was 18 y/o i'd still have a problem with it - he's supposed to be there to help, not get his way with the local boys.

Lord TSC

thebigbiffo wrote: »

what i do know is that a 35 y/o charity worker in a poor country should not be taking sexual advantage of a 15 year old he's there to protect - this is clear cut. even if this guy was 18 y/o i'd still have a problem with it - he's supposed to be there to help, not get his way with the local boys.

I'd imagine you'll be hard pressed to find anyone who disagrees with you there.

thebigbiffo

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

See, that's what I'm talking about. "Young boys" implies something completly different than what Norris himself actually did. Norris is talking about teenagers, not young boys. The "young boys" comment implies he thinks its ok for people to engage in sexual relations with pre-teens which is not what he's saying.

Are his views still wrong? IMO, yes. But once again, people criticising him are having to revert to hyperbole and dramatic statements. Which is weird, cause there's perfectly legitamte reasons and things to call him up on.

And it's not a thought police thing. Feel free to think the sky is green for all I care. I'm just commenting on how it annoys me. I'm not trying to convince you to vote for Norris, and I'm not even particularly defending what he's done. But if you're going to give out about someone, let's not ruin the discussion by misrepresenting things.

so you wouldn't describe a 15 year old as a young boy? i would. fair enough you could say teenager if you wanted, but young boy is acceptable.

efb

He's not a young boy! 4-7 is a 'young boy' he's an older boy

Phill Ewinn

People need to think this trough. Supporting Norris is socially unacceptable. That's a given. These stories surrounding him have gone international and people are looking at us to see waht happens next.

We'll all be tarred with the same brush if he gets in. We won't be called liiberals or leaders in the gay rights league. We'll be called something else. Something bad. Norris knows this and he should have more respect than to run as a candidate.

thebigbiffo

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

I'd imagine you'll be hard pressed to find anyone who disagrees with you there.

so why are people defending someone who defends that behaviour then (on state headed paper - the implication being that the irish people are defending this behaviour)!?

Ms Tootsie

Quick question - how can I check if I am registered to vote?

efb

kaza2710 wrote: »

Quick question - how can I check if I am registered to vote?

Checktheregister.ie

thebigbiffo

efb wrote: »

He's not a young boy! 4-7 is a 'young boy' he's an older boy

right. and 7-10 is what? 10 - 12 is what? and i'm assuming you're going to say everything over 12 is a teenager.

well look, in my eyes this 15 year old was a 'young boy', certainly in the context of a 35 year old. I'm 31 and I'd view any 15 year old as a young boy.

Ms Tootsie

efb wrote: »

Checktheregister.ie

Great thanks!

Lord TSC

thebigbiffo wrote: »

so why are people defending someone who defends that behaviour then (on state headed paper - the implication being that the irish people are defending this behaviour)!?

I'm not defending the actions of Norris. They are not defendable. I'm just saying that in a time where there's so much to criticise him over, people are needlessly exagerating things and engaging in hyperbole.

efb

thebigbiffo wrote: »

right. and 7-10 is what? 10 - 12 is what? and i'm assuming you're going to say everything over 12 is a teenager.

well look, in my eyes this 15 year old was a 'young boy', certainly in the context of a 35 year old. I'm 31 and I'd view any 15 year old as a young boy.

I'm 31 too! I don't know many 15 year olds I'd refer to as a young boy! Prob a teenager 10-12 older boy. 7-9 just boy btw

LordSutch

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

People need to think this trough. Supporting Norris is socially unacceptable. That's a given. These stories surrounding him have gone international and people are looking at us to see waht happens next.

We'll all be tarred with the same brush if he gets in. We won't be called liiberals or leaders in the gay rights league. We'll be called something else. Something bad. Norris knows this and he should have more respect than to run as a candidate.

People need to think this trough. Supporting McGuinness is socially unacceptable. That's a given. These stories surrounding him have gone international and people are looking at us to see waht happens next.

We'll all be tarred with the same brush if he gets in. We won't be called liiberals or leaders in the human rights league. We'll be called something else. Something bad. McGuinness knows this and he should have more respect than to run as a candidate.

popzmaster

LordSutch wrote: »

People need to think this trough. Supporting McGuinness is socially unacceptable. That's a given. These stories surrounding him have gone international and people are looking at us to see waht happens next.

We'll all be tarred with the same brush if he gets in. We won't be called liiberals or leaders in the human rights league. We'll be called something else. Something bad. McGuinness knows this and he should have more respect than to run as a candidate.

See it's this sort of thing that pissés me off. People rightly questioning Norris and then the bleeding hearts turn around and have a go at MMG, a man who has done immeasurably more for this country than Norris ever has. Its getting old lads, surely you can see some of the points being made are entirely valid.
MMG's involvment in the peace process is somehow incredibly being completely overlooked by the liberal lefties and such and it confuses me to a degree I can't even begin to describe I honestly just don't get it. Is it because MMG actually has something to bring to the table as president? I'm actually really curious here.

Phill Ewinn

Interesting point LordSutch. That point is 100% wasted on the English electorate it seems. They're still willing to keep terrorists and bigots on the goverment pay roll.

If it comes down to a MaGuiness right or wrong argument then the ''they started it first'' rule applies.

No one put a gun to Norris's head before he wrote those letters. The Brittish army effectively did put a gun to the heads of Catholics who wanted equal rights in the six counties back in 1970.

Lord TSC

LordSutch wrote: »

People need to think this trough. Supporting McGuinness is socially unacceptable. That's a given. These stories surrounding him have gone international and people are looking at us to see waht happens next.

We'll all be tarred with the same brush if he gets in. We won't be called liiberals or leaders in the human rights league. We'll be called something else. Something bad. McGuinness knows this and he should have more respect than to run as a candidate.

In fairness, we shouldn't presume that all Anti-Norris people are pro-MMG. I'm as anti-MMG as anyone here but there's still plenty of legit reasons to criticise Norris. I also blast SF people when they turn these things around with a "Yeah, but X is worse" arguement since that's lazy debating.

LordSutch

popzmaster wrote: »

See it's this sort of thing that pissés me off. People rightly questioning Norris and then the bleeding hearts turn around and have a go at MMG, a man who has done immeasurably more for this country than Norris ever has. Its getting old lads, surely you can see some of the points being made are entirely valid.
MMG's involvment in the peace process is somehow incredibly being completely overlooked by the liberal lefties and such and it confuses me to a degree I can't even begin to describe I honestly just don't get it. Is it because MMG actually has something to bring to the table as president? I'm actually really curious here.

Now now, I am not saying that we shouldn't have a go at Norris's past either! But what I am saying is that we should also scrutinise the unsavoury past of said Martin McGuinness (formerly of the Provo's). His past pre 94' is very very murky indeed, and its the type of past that will always haunt McGuinness, weather or not he makes it to the Aras. Of course he has turned his back on violence & murder, of course he is a changed man, and of course he is the deputy 1st Minister of Northern Ireland, but his past immersion & connections with the PIRA, & his condonance of their horrendous actions, makes him useless as a serious candidate for President of Ireland.

Norris has questions to answer, re some letters.

Riamfada

I dont think the poll reflects national vote for Norris. The majority of his base in 18-25 year olds who are the largest group on boards but the smallest voters in reality.

keano_afc

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

People need to think this trough. Supporting Norris is socially unacceptable. That's a given. These stories surrounding him have gone international and people are looking at us to see waht happens next.

We'll all be tarred with the same brush if he gets in. We won't be called liiberals or leaders in the gay rights league. We'll be called something else. Something bad. Norris knows this and he should have more respect than to run as a candidate.

LordSutch wrote: »

People need to think this trough. Supporting McGuinness is socially unacceptable. That's a given. These stories surrounding him have gone international and people are looking at us to see waht happens next.

We'll all be tarred with the same brush if he gets in. We won't be called liiberals or leaders in the human rights league. We'll be called something else. Something bad. McGuinness knows this and he should have more respect than to run as a candidate.

So you're obviously voting for neither of them Lord Sutch?