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

cowzerp

Sam Vimes wrote: »

You know that being in the Commonwealth isn't the same as being in the UK and that all members are considered equal right?

There are two members of the commonwealth that were never British colonies

And?

we left the commonwealth-there is no reason to be part of it

Norris just wants Ireland to be part of the union, most people would crack up if they knew this-It's very hush hush for some reason!

dvpower

cowzerp wrote: »

Norris just wants Ireland to be part of the union, most people would crack up if they knew this-It's very hush hush for some reason!

What union - the commonwealth 'union'?:rolleyes:

Spread

The Israeli-Algerian-Irish Union, of course

Ironé

cowzerp wrote: »

Take out all the controversies and all people see is a bumbling omodhan with an annoying voice and arrogance of an unrivalled degree in the election

Have to agree - there's no need for the character assassination in my opinion just hearing him talk in the presidential debates is enough for me.

cowzerp wrote: »

How Irish people could vote for a Unionist anyway is beyond me, the fact he wants us back in the commonwealth is enough to make most people realise he's deluded and not a man of the people.

You know I don't think people care about that at all. I would have nothing at all against joining the Common Wealth if there was any benefit to the country. I think the rose-tinted view of the past 100 years of independence has gone for most people. The reception the queen got on her visit is proof of that. People have moved on.

Bannasidhe

Ironé wrote: »

Have to agree - there's no need for the character assassination in my opinion just hearing him talk in the presidential debates is enough for me.



You know I don't think people care about that at all. I would have nothing at all against joining the Common Wealth if there was any benefit to the country. I think the rose-tinted view of the past 100 years of independence has gone for most people. The reception the queen got on her visit is proof of that. People have moved on.

If we join the Commonwealth does that mean elected representative who got caught with their sticky hands in the expenses cookie jar will be jailed like in the UK?

Morlar

Ironé wrote: »

You know I don't think people care about that at all. I would have nothing at all against joining the Common Wealth if there was any benefit to the country. I think the rose-tinted view of the past 100 years of independence has gone for most people. The reception the queen got on her visit is proof of that. People have moved on.

I think you are taking one thing (a gesture of forgiveness, graciousnss and reconcilliation to a visiting head of state) and confusing it with something completely different. Let's not forget also that that visit required the most extensive security operation in the history of the state and protests were forbidden.

Morlar

Bannasidhe wrote: »

If we join the Commonwealth does that mean elected representative who got caught with their sticky hands in the expenses cookie jar will be jailed like in the UK?

I think the level of accountability and consequences enforced on public representatives in the UK for expenses fraud is something that we don't need to join the commonwealth in order to apply here.

If we can't apply that on our own, then my view is that those who currently avoid accountability and consequences would simply continue to avoid it in future if Ireland were to join a british commonwealth.

Sunnyisland

Ironé wrote: »

You know I don't think people care about that at all. I would have nothing at all against joining the Common Wealth if there was any benefit to the country. I think the rose-tinted view of the past 100 years of independence has gone for most people. The reception the queen got on her visit is proof of that. People have moved on.

IMO your wrong the queen got a courteous welcome like any foreign head of state should get, Going by your reckoning we should become a part of the United states,look at the publics welcome there last two presidents have received here.

reprazant

cowzerp wrote: »

Take out all the controversies and all people see is a bumbling omodhan with an annoying voice and arrogance of an unrivalled degree in the election

How Irish people could vote for a Unionist anyway is beyond me, the fact he wants us back in the commonwealth is enough to make most people realise he's deluded and not a man of the people.

Was there not a thread in the politics that showed that to be untrue? Wolf Tone had written to him to query it and had gotten and answer to his satisfaction?

Interesting though that the forgive and forget thing is all very one sided. One is to forgive and forget as long as it is something MMG has done or may have done in the past.

sensibleken

Im changing my mind. Im spoiling my vote. the whole mess is a total waste of money. We would be better served voting on who is head of NAMA, the IDA or IMRA.

there are three votes on that day. 2 are important, this one isnt

dvpower

realies wrote: »

Going by your reckoning we should become a part of the United states,look at the publics welcome there last two presidents have received here.

I think you have a basic misunderstanding of what being a member of the Commonwealth is.

Ironé

Morlar wrote: »

I think you are taking one thing (a gesture of forgiveness, graciousnss and reconcilliation to a visiting head of state) and confusing it with something completely different. Let's not forget also that that visit required the most extensive security operation in the history of the state and protests were forbidden.

The vast majority of people I talked to were really moved by the visit and were not in the least bit threatened by a foreign head of state visiting our country. It felt like we'd finally moved on. And I live in what would traditionally be a very republican part of the county.

Ironé

realies wrote: »

Going by your reckoning we should become a part of the United states,look at the publics welcome there last two presidents have received here.

Eh? That's some jump in logic there.

I never said we should become part of the UK

My point was that if Norris is a unionist most people aren't threatened by that.

If there was a benefit to joining the commonwealth then I don't think many people would be against it. Why would you if there was a benefit? We're big boys and girls now and the inferiority complex is gone for most people. We're our own country and are equal to the UK.

Sunnyisland

dvpower wrote: »

I think you have a basic misunderstanding of what being a member of the Commonwealth is.

Not being funny or smart but give me a basic understanding of What Ireland will benefit from rejoining the commonwealth.

sensibleken

realies wrote: »

Not being funny or smart but give me a basic understanding of What Ireland will benefit from rejoining the commonwealth.

a free hat!

Ironé

realies wrote: »

Not being funny or smart but give me a basic understanding of What Ireland will benefit from rejoining the commonwealth.

According to Wiki, members 'strengthen the shared culture of the Commonwealth, which extends through common sports, literary heritage, and political and legal practices.Due to this, Commonwealth countries are not considered to be "foreign" to one another. Reflecting this, diplomatic missions between Commonwealth countries are designated as High Commissions rather than embassies.'

Doesn't seem like a bad thing really.

This is really going off on a tangent now.

dvpower

realies wrote: »

Not being funny or smart but give me a basic understanding of What Ireland will benefit from rejoining the commonwealth.

Not a while lot really. Maybe some business contacts, a bit of cultural exchange.

I'm not personally either for or against it. I'll give it a bit more thought if it ever becomes a real proposal. I don't fully understand why some people are so vehemently opposed to it.

--Kaiser--

Lawlesz wrote: »

Ah yes, sorry the man that stood up while his people were treated like third class citizens, and then led the IRA to peace, and worked his ass off for the betterment of his country. Yep your right an absolute terrorist. :rolleyes:

On another note, how many of the MMG thrashers on here see Nelson Mandela as a terrorist responsible for the ruination of his country. A man who deserved to spend 28 years in prison. Or how many of you claim that he is a great man, responsible for his country's freedom?? Come on, open your eys.

Mandela was a terrorist, the difference is he served time for his crimes. MMG served only a few months IIRC.

In both cases, progress was achieved through political means, not by the violent action of terrorists

Ironé

dvpower wrote: »

I'll give it a bit more thought if it ever becomes a real proposal. I don't fully understand why some people are so vehemently opposed to it.

Can't be put better than that.

Sunnyisland

Ironé wrote: »

Eh? That's some jump in logic there.

I never said we should become part of the UK

My point was that if Norris is a unionist most people aren't threatened by that.

If there was a benefit to joining the commonwealth then I don't think many people would be against it. Why would you if there was a benefit? We're big boys and girls now and the inferiority complex is gone for most people. We're our own country and are equal to the UK.

Ok, I don't think the majority of the Irish people would want to rejoin the commonwealth as there is to much "history" between our countries,I personally am not saying it would be a bad thing as i don't know to much about it but there is just that cloud or fear that we will be ruled once(how stupid or naive that seems) again by the British and that don't go down to well.

Morlar

dvpower wrote: »

Not a while lot really. Maybe some business contacts, a bit of cultural exchange.

I'm not personally either for or against it. I'll give it a bit more thought if it ever becomes a real proposal. I don't fully understand why some people are so vehemently opposed to it.

I wouldn't characterise those opposed to Ireland rejoining the British commonwealth as being 'vehement' anymore than I would describe advocates in that way.

A few people are in favour of it and some (I would think numerically higher) people are not in favour.

Any potential cash or trade benefit would have to be looked at 'in the round', free of the 'vote yes for jobs' type of advocacy & scaremongering which we saw during lisbon 2 for example.

Sunnyisland

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

Mandela was a terrorist, the difference is he served time for his crimes. MMG served only a few months IIRC.

So it goes by the length of time you have served and that's a difference ? If they could have gotten MMG years they would have.


In both cases, progress was achieved through political means, not by the violent action of terrorists

Well there is an argument in both cases where violence or armed struggle were the only options left to the people who lived there, and it took a long time before the state would actually recognises and sit down and talk.

Sunnyisland

Back on topic sorry about that.we can come back to the commonwealth another time.

--Kaiser--

realies wrote: »

Well there is an argument in both cases where violence or armed struggle were the only options left to the people who lived there, and it took a long time before the state would actually recognises and sit down and talk.

You could also argue that the escalation of violence set back the political aims by decades. Ever hear of Gandhi?

Morlar

realies wrote: »

Back on topic sorry about that.we can come back to the commonwealth another time.

A single day without a fresh Norris scandal and we lose the run of ourselves !

I Heart Internet

Wrangling this back towards the topic at hand:

Sean Gallagher seems to have a nice looking wife....she looks like a first-lady!

http://www.seangallagher.com/2011/10/sean-gallagher-pledges-to-put-enterprise-at-the-heart-of-the-presidency-at-campaign-launch/

I might be swayed by that.....

This is NOT his wife: http://www.broadsheet.ie/2011/05/16/sean-gallagher-some-neck/

dvpower

Morlar wrote: »

Any potential cash or trade benefit would have to be looked at 'in the round', free of the 'vote yes for jobs' type of advocacy & scaremongering which we saw during lisbon 2 for example.

... and free of 'don't expect me to bow and scrape to Liz Saxe Coburg Krautface after what her and her paras did on Bloody Sunday'

Morlar

dvpower wrote: »

... and free of 'don't expect me to bow and scrape to Liz Saxe Coburg Krautface after what her and her paras did on Bloody Sunday'

'Careful you don't drop your union jack tinted monocle'.

Caricatures of either sides position in that discussion are possible, no ?

Sunnyisland

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

You could also argue that the escalation of violence set back the political aims by decades. Ever hear of Gandhi?

Of course i have heard of gandhi There was no way in the world unionists would sit down and talk in the 60,s or 70,s.

Sam Vimes

cowzerp wrote: »

And?

we left the commonwealth-there is no reason to be part of it

Norris just wants Ireland to be part of the union, most people would crack up if they knew this-It's very hush hush for some reason!

As dvpower says, what union?

The Commonwealth of Nations, normally referred to as the Commonwealth and formerly known as the British Commonwealth, is an intergovernmental organisation of fifty-four independent member states. All but two of these countries (Mozambique and Rwanda) were formerly part of the British Empire, out of which it developed.

The member states cooperate within a framework of common values and goals as outlined in the Singapore Declaration. These include the promotion of democracy, human rights, good governance, the rule of law, individual liberty, egalitarianism, free trade, multilateralism, and world peace.[1] The Commonwealth is not a political union, but an intergovernmental organisation through which countries with diverse social, political, and economic backgrounds are regarded as equal in status.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_of_Nations
That really doesn't sound all that horrific to me