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

efb

farna_boy wrote: »

Someone earlier referred to him as a welfare cheat, I was responding to that.

And I advised that was libellous

Ghandee

Enough of this farce.

Norris should do the honorable thing at this stage and withdraw from the elections.
if anymore skeleton's emerge from his cupboard, were going to see something resembling a mass grave.

Can some of his fans please explain to me what he'll bring to the country as president, that warrants the relentless support he still receives, despite scandal after scandal emerging?

Btw, I originally had Norris earmarked for my vote, that notion has completely flew out the window in the last month.

FetchTheGin

I really hope Gay Mitchell doesn't get a whiff of a chance.

farna_boy

seamus wrote: »

Your claims of exploitation and moral wrongness presume that Norris set out to be deliberately disingenuous.

He had a genuine disability. He received the payment in all moral rightness, and apparently at the insistence of the college.

I'm really wondering what did you expect him to do when this happened? Give up the senate too and sit and home pining about his illness?

It's an ingrained problem where they are, and I would like Norris to comment on it in the wider context of insane money-wasting practices in the public service.
In reality it is no worse than our Taoiseach occupying a teaching job that he can return to at any time, even though he's been a politician for the vast length of his career. I don't see anyone foaming at the mouth about that.
How is that any less wrong than Norris being given a payment legitimately by a state body because he could no longer physically perform work for them?

I would expect him as a respectable person to do the right thing and refuse the payment from Trinity and to continue his work in the Senate.

I agree with you about the Taoiseach and all other politicians having essentially two jobs though. I think once you are elected as a TD or any public representative, you should have to resign from you former position and not receive any financial gain from you previous position.

I can understand why it is in place though i.e. if you run as an independent and get elected to the Dail for 4 years but subsequently never get re-elected, you should be able to return to your former life and job. However, in the case of career politicians, I really can't see how they can justify it.

Seachmall

FetchTheGin wrote: »

I really hope Gay Mitchell doesn't get a whiff of a chance.

+1

Between his pleas for clemency and views on same-sex marriage I don't think he's received enough criticism from the public.

Himself and Dana are two that I personally hope don't get even nearly elected, even though I really have no interest in the elections themselves.

Da Shins Kelly

Bannasidhe wrote: »

King Edward II of England.
Queen Christina of Sweden.

What is the relevance of the question?

Neither were openly gay. They key word here is 'openly'. Both were rumoured to be gay, but neither actually came out with it. King Edward II had male "favourites", but he also fathered children with women. He was not an openly homosexual man (he may have been in his own head). Christina of Sweden, likewise, was not an openly gay woman. She refused to marry, despite being engaged to her cousin, and cross-dressed, but never came out as anything. She was accused of both having many affairs with men and women, and also of being a virgin when she died. So, again, no confirmation from the individuals themselves. Understandable in those times. I'm sure there have been plenty of world leaders who have had gay/lesbian relations, but have never come out with it.

The point is, David Norris would be the first openly gay head of state. Someone asked the question, so I answered it. It's out there for everyone to look into themselves.

squod

farna_boy wrote: »

I would expect him as a respectable person to do the right thing and refuse the payment from Trinity and to continue his work in the Senate.

I agree with you about the Taoiseach and all other politicians having essentially two jobs though. I think once you are elected as a TD or any public representative, you should have to resign from you former position and not receive any financial gain from you previous position.

I can understand why it is in place though i.e. if you run as an independent and get elected to the Dail for 4 years but subsequently never get re-elected, you should be able to return to your former life and job. However, in the case of career politicians, I really can't see how they can justify it.

In fairness in 1994 it was popular to double job as a TD and a county councillor.

Peep O'Day

hooradiation wrote: »

Still voting for Norris.

Problem?

Wow good for you! Why would any logical person have a problem with that? He was democratically put on the ballot paper and has the right to be there just as much as any other candidate. I haven't a notion of giving him a preference but you're entitled to do what you please. Congratulations, run along now

Seachmall

Da Shins Kelly wrote: »

The point is, David Norris would be the first openly gay head of state. Someone asked the question, so I answered it. It's out there for everyone to look into themselves.

Nero, Roman Emperor. Married a man (boy?). First openly gay head of state.

There have been many since (including a second Roman Emperor).

Peep O'Day

Da Shins Kelly wrote: »

Neither were openly gay. They key word here is 'openly'. Both were rumoured to be gay, but neither actually came out with it. King Edward II had male "favourites", but he also fathered children with women. He was not an openly homosexual man (he may have been in his own head). Christina of Sweden, likewise, was not an openly gay woman. She refused to marry, despite being engaged to her cousin, and cross-dressed, but never came out as anything. She was accused of both having many affairs with men and women, and also of being a virgin when she died. So, again, no confirmation from the individuals themselves. Understandable in those times. I'm sure there have been plenty of world leaders who have had gay/lesbian relations, but have never come out with it.

The point is, David Norris would be the first openly gay head of state. Someone asked the question, so I answered it. It's out there for everyone to look into themselves.

Voting for someone because they are gay is equally as retarded as not voting for someone because they are gay

kraggy

seamus wrote: »

Your claims of exploitation and moral wrongness presume that Norris set out to be deliberately disingenuous.

He had a genuine disability. He received the payment in all moral rightness, and apparently at the insistence of the college.

I'm really wondering what did you expect him to do when this happened? Give up the senate too and sit and home pining about his illness?

It's an ingrained problem where they are, and I would like Norris to comment on it in the wider context of insane money-wasting practices in the public service.
In reality it is no worse than our Taoiseach occupying a teaching job that he can return to at any time, even though he's been a politician for the vast length of his career. I don't see anyone foaming at the mouth about that.
How is that any less wrong than Norris being given a payment legitimately by a state body because he could no longer physically perform work for them?

Trinity College is not public sector.

Yes they get money from the government to pay for the fees of students AT THE MOMENT. But that can be witdrawn at any time.

To call them public sector is false.

Have to agree with on the payment thing though. While I think Norris should leave the race and maybe even resign his Seanad seat, I think that this is a non-story. It's not Social Welfare that paid him the disability money, it was Trinity.

seamus

Ghandee wrote: »

Can some of his fans please explain to me what he'll bring to the country as president, that warrants the relentless support he still receives, despite scandal after scandal emerging?

He's a wordly, outgoing, intelligent man with a strong interest in world politics and a massively strong human rights record.

As a head of state, the primary job is to act as a representative for Ireland in other states and when we have visiting dignitaries at home, He will also preside over various state functions. As a host, master of ceremonies and overall representative for the country, I think he is extremely well suited for these duties and none of the "scandals" (I use the word loosely) have indicated to me otherwise.

His long experience in the Senate also means that he is perfectly suited to carry out the legislation-related activities required of a president, specifically the need to review each one before signing into law. The fact that he's independent further strengthens his suitability for this.

starch4ser

Norris said he was claiming disability because he caught hepatitus from drinking water, hhhhmmmmmm.

Lord TSC

Ghandee wrote: »

Can some of his fans please explain to me what he'll bring to the country as president, that warrants the relentless support he still receives, despite scandal after scandal emerging?

People continue to ask the question despite the fact it's been answered numerous times.

It strikes me the majority of people are voting for Norris because out of all the candiates, he is the lesser of the evils. Yeah, he has made very bad decisions in the past, but he still, in many people's minds, is better than some of the alternatives. What would Dana bring to the presidency? What would MMG? What would any of them? They are horrible choices to choose from and people are picking Norris because as bad as some of his views are, as stupid as some of his decisions have been, he still is not as bad as some of the other candiates.

EDIT: Also what Seamus said :P

Da Shins Kelly

Seachmall wrote: »

Nero, in the 1st century.

Nero was not gay in the sense that we see it. Nero had two wives, and had affairs with many women. While he took female lovers, he also took male lovers as was the norm in Ancient Rome. It was not considered gay in the sense that we see it, and Nero did not exclusively have relationships with men.

David Norris is openly gay, has relationships with men, does not have a wife and does not take female lovers. So there is a difference between being gay in the sense that we see it and being "gay" in the sense that Nero was.

Da Shins Kelly

Peep O'Day wrote: »

Voting for someone because they are gay is equally as retarded as not voting for someone because they are gay

I did not say I was going to vote for him because he is gay. Someone asked a question and I answered it.

For the love of God..

newballsplease

I asked the question about any other gay presidents.(head of state)
was just curious. nothing else.

Fishooks12

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

People continue to ask the question despite the fact it's been answered numerous times.

It strikes me the majority of people are voting for Norris because out of all the candiates, he is the lesser of the evils. Yeah, he has made very bad decisions in the past, but he still, in many people's minds, is better than some of the alternatives. What would Dana bring to the presidency? What would MMG? What would any of them? They are horrible choices to choose from and people are picking Norris because as bad as some of his views are, as stupid as some of his decisions have been, he still is not as bad as some of the other candiates.

EDIT: Also what Seamus said :P

You say he's the lesser of all evils and point out the flaws of each candidate yet ignore the one who will ultimately win the election, Michael D

He has none of the controversy that's associated with Norris and will do just as good a job

And as far as personal choices and unsuitability for the job are concerned, Norris is only trumped by Dana and McGuiness

Peep O'Day

Da Shins Kelly wrote: »

I did not say I was going to vote for him because he is gay. Someone asked a question and I answered it.

For the love of God..

For the love of God, indeed.... I didn't say you said that's what you were going to do. I merely quoted your post to make the point that's all.

owainglyndwr

:eek:

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

You are well educated yet you would decide your vote based on the ramblings of some stranger on the internet?

You can still go back to school at 63 ya know

For a while there i thought i had hit a positive note .. I hope i haven't offended anyone.

We are all smart .. We are smart because we know we are being lied to on a daily basis by those we elect to serve not "our" but our countries best interests..

What if anything positive can a President do for Ireland's best interests ? Mary M was great but she had no influence or impact on the Irish economy when the Boom suddenly and overnight went bust .. If their brief is to uphold the Irish constitution then Mary M failed miserably in that department as Nice, Lisbon one and two is testament to that fact ..

The European Empire has decimated the Irish constitution.. Enda Kenny can't do much without the OK from Brussels..

I bet if you ask the average person what role the Presidency plays is in Irish life they will probably say "GAA or IRFU and the odd remembrance parade.. I fear the Presidency has gone beyond the dying Swan routine and any smart observer must concede that the Irish Presidency is all washed up. RIP !

Bannasidhe

Da Shins Kelly wrote: »

Neither were openly gay. They key word here is 'openly'. Both were rumoured to be gay, but neither actually came out with it. King Edward II had male "favourites", but he also fathered children with women. He was not an openly homosexual man (he may have been in his own head). Christina of Sweden, likewise, was not an openly gay woman. She refused to marry, despite being engaged to her cousin, and cross-dressed, but never came out as anything. She was accused of both having many affairs with men and women, and also of being a virgin when she died. So, again, no confirmation from the individuals themselves. Understandable in those times. I'm sure there have been plenty of world leaders who have had gay/lesbian relations, but have never come out with it.

The point is, David Norris would be the first openly gay head of state. Someone asked the question, so I answered it. It's out there for everyone to look into themselves.

Edward II had a relationship with Piers Gaveston. I have just finished reading some letters by Edward's wife, Eleanor, and she had no doubts about the nature of their relationship.

Christina of Sweden abdicated the throne - converted to Catholicism, travelled to Rome in 'man drag' and spent the rest of her life collecting works of art which featured lovely ladies.

Monarchs were expected to reproduce - its how dynastic politics works. Ability to reproduce has nothing to do with sexual orientation -Oscar Wilde had children - I have not only a child, but grandchildren, and am Gay.

It is only since the 20th century that it has been possible to be 'openly' gay -in Western countries. Even now, even in the 'West', it would be difficult for an openly Gay man or Lesbian to get elected. Hell, the U.S. didn't elect the first RC president until Kennedy in the late 50s and just a few years ago went into convulsions at the thought of a woman getting the top job.

I still don't see the relevance of the original question...

starch4ser

I think if we are ever to have a gay president, we may as well go for a flamboyant camp one, like shirly templebar. At least, we'd all get a good laugh!

Morlar

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Hell, the U.S. didn't elect the first RC president until Kennedy in the late 50s

"Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy"

Seachmall

Bannasidhe wrote: »

It is only since the 20th century that it has been possible to be 'openly' gay -in Western countries...

And many centuries before that there was no need to be "openly" gay. People were straight, bi, or gay and no one gave a ****. They weren't "out of the closet" because the "closet" didn't exist.

Essentially, in terms of sexuality and "tolerance", we're trying to advance to a previous state.

owainglyndwr

Da Shins Kelly wrote: »

I did not say I was going to vote for him because he is gay. Someone asked a question and I answered it.

For the love of God..

Or like voting for a President because he is Black (Then give him a Nobel Peace Prize for doing sweet FA)

David Norris is a Flamboyant Gay person with "LOTS" of Skeletons in his closet .. What else will emerge in the coming days ? This is nothing to do with his gender; though the bigoted RCC would beg to differ. This is all about his unwillingness to answer probing questions which the Irish public has a right to know about. He has in the past 4 months let the side down on more than one occasion and not a day goes by without something else cropping up.. This is NOT good enough !!

Bannasidhe

Seachmall wrote: »

And many centuries before that there was no need to be "openly" gay. People were straight, bi, or gay and no one gave a ****. They weren't "out of the closet" because the "closet" didn't exist.

Essentially, in terms of sexuality and "tolerance", we're trying to advance to a previous state.

This is true - Gaelic Ireland had no issue with it (see Kelly, Fergus. Guide to Early Irish Law for details).

Still don't see the relevance of the original question tho...

dvpower

newballsplease wrote: »

I asked the question about any other gay presidents.(head of state)
was just curious. nothing else.

I think the Icelandic PM is gay.

My name is URL

seamus wrote: »

He's a wordly, outgoing, intelligent man with a strong interest in world politics and a massively strong human rights record.

He didn't seem too intelligent under pressure from Vincent Browne last night. He seemed like a flummoxed teenager trying to weasel his way out of a bad situation. Higgins possesses all of the good characteristics that Norris does, without any of the dramatics. I can't fathom why people would still opt for Norris over Higgins, but each to their own.

Kasabian

As a snapshot of the country this poll confirms that the country is populated by a large percentage of morons.

owainglyndwr

My name is URL wrote: »

He didn't seem too intelligent under pressure from Vincent Browne last night. He seemed like a flummoxed teenager trying to weasel his way out of a bad situation. Higgins possesses all of the good characteristics that Norris does, without any of the dramatics. I can't fathom why people would still opt for Norris over Higgins, but each to their own.

I can fathom it ... Your average Joe and Jane is an idiot .. Sure didn't they vote Bertie in "3" times ? If Jedward were running who do you think they would vote for ?