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

sensibleken

Sam Vimes wrote: »

As dvpower says, what union?

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

um

"These include the promotion of democracy, human rights, good governance, the rule of law, individual liberty, egalitarianism, free trade, multilateralism, and world peace"

some of the member countries would do well to re-read that bit.

Peep O'Day

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

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

months ≠ time??

Ironé

realies wrote: »

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.

We'll agree to differ - I think the majority of Irish people have more confidence in themselves as a nation at this stage and would be able to make a decision to join the commonwealth based on practical reasons and not living in the past.

Cloud of fear that would be ruled by the British again - who really believes that is a possibility unless it was something the country chose democratically.

cowzerp

Never mind been ruled by them, we want to be fully independent of them, we did not leave the common wealth for the craic!

It's a load of rubbish and everyone knows that.

Bannasidhe

cowzerp wrote: »

Never mind been ruled by them, we want to be fully independent of them, we did not leave the common wealth for the craic!

It's a load of rubbish and everyone knows that.

Well Dev appears to have been in favour of Ireland in the Commonwealth:

APPENDIX 17 PROPOSED TREATY OF ASSOCIATION BETWEEN IRELAND AND THE BRITISH COMMONWEALTH PRESENTED BY PRESIDENT DE VALERA TO THE SECRET SESSION OF AN DÁIL

In order to bring to an end the long and ruinous conflict between Great Britain and Ireland by a sure and lasting peace honourable to both nations, it is agreed
1. That the legislative, executive, and judicial authority of Ireland shall be derived solely from the people of Ireland.
2. That, for purposes of common concern, Ireland shall be associated with the States of the British Commonwealth, viz: the Kingdom of Great Britain, the Dominion of Canada, the Commonwealth of Australia, the Dominion of New Zealand, and the Union of South Africa.
3. That when acting as an associate the rights, status, and privileges of Ireland shall be in no respect less than those enjoyed by any of the component states of the British Commonwealth.
4. That the matters of “common concern” shall include Defence, Peace and War, Political Treaties, and all matters now treated as of common concern amongst the States of the British Commonwealth, and that in these matters there shall be between Ireland and the States of the British commonwealth “such concerted action founded on consultation as the several Governments may determine”.

http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/D/DT/D.P.A.170001.html

Morlar

Ironé wrote: »

We'll agree to differ - I think the majority of Irish people have more confidence in themselves as a nation at this stage and would be able to make a decision to join the commonwealth based on practical reasons and not living in the past.

Cloud of fear that would be ruled by the British again - who really believes that is a possibility unless it was something the country chose democratically.

This argument goes both ways.

Is it not those living in the past who seek a return to the good old days of being a member of the commonwealth ?

Is the fear not that we can not be truly independent and stand alone ?

hondasam

I might have to consider voting for Sean Gallagher, a few people have convinced me to give him a chance.

Ironé

Morlar wrote: »

Is it not those living in the past who seek a return to the good old days of being a member of the commonwealth ?

Is the fear not that we can not be truly independent and stand alone ?

No it's not - the point was that why would there be a problem joining it IF there was a benefit to it.

Lord TSC

Is the fear not that we can not be truly independent and stand alone ?

Given the state Ireland is in at the moment, it could be argued we can't :P

dvpower

Kaiser wrote:

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

Peep O'Day wrote: »

months ≠ time??

He served some time for an early crime. Later he committed more crimes but didn't serve any time for those.

Morlar

dvpower wrote: »

He served some time for an early crime. Later he committed more crimes but didn't serve any time for those.

'The people of Ireland have moved on from that.'

dvpower

Morlar wrote: »

'The people of Ireland have moved on from that.'

At least 18% of them have.

Morlar

dvpower wrote: »

At least 18% of them have.

For now.

Bannasidhe

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

Given the state Ireland is in at the moment, it could be argued we can't :P

Amen to that!

Da Shins Kelly

Bannasidhe wrote: »

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...

That's what I mean though. They were not openly gay, as the times wouldn't have allowed it. I'm not going to argue with you about it.

I assume the person who asked the original question was just curious. No harm in that.

RachaelVO

Da Shins Kelly wrote: »

That's what I mean though. They were not openly gay, as the times wouldn't have allowed it. I'm not going to argue with you about it.

I assume the person who asked the original question was just curious. No harm in that.

To be fair, IF he's elected (and even though I'm a norrisette I'm not so sure that will happen), he would be the first elected gay head of state (AFAIK but I'm open to correction). There are other gay heads of state, but they took over as leaders of the leading party etc; To be the first elected gay head of state, DN (if it happens) would be the first!

Da Shins Kelly

RachaelVO wrote: »

To be fair, IF he's elected (and even though I'm a norrisette I'm not so sure that will happen), he would be the first elected gay head of state (AFAIK but I'm open to correction). There are other gay heads of state, but they took over as leaders of the leading party etc; To be the first elected gay head of state, DN (if it happens) would be the first!

This is what I'm saying.

I just want to make clear, that someone asked a question about previous gay heads of state, and from all I've read, it seems that if elected David Norris would be the first. I'm not saying that being gay is reason to vote or not vote for someone. Someone asked the question out of curiosity, and I just answered it to the best of my knowledge. If people dispute that, then they can go and look it up for themselves. That's the beauty of the internet - the information is at your fingertips. I'm not looking to argue with anyone about practices in ancient civilisations or former kings or queens of other countries. Just stating what I have read myself.

starbelgrade

Da Shins Kelly wrote: »

This is what I'm saying.

I just want to make clear, that someone asked a question about previous gay heads of state, and from all I've read, it seems that if elected David Norris would be the first.

Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir - the head of state of Iceland* - is gay.


* = the country, not the supermarket.

squod

starbelgrade wrote: »

Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir - the head of state of Iceland* - is gay.


* = the country, not the supermarket.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xpugp6DIb3I

General General

RachaelVO wrote: »

To be fair, IF he's elected (and even though I'm a norrisette I'm not so sure that will happen), he would be the first elected gay head of state (AFAIK but I'm open to correction). There are other gay heads of state, but they took over as leaders of the leading party etc; To be the first elected gay head of state, DN (if it happens) would be the first!

You mean like Alanis Norrisette?

It's a traffic jam when you're already late
A slump in the polls after another story breaks,
It's like ten thousand plebs when all you want is your knight,
It's meeting the Arab of your dreams,
And then meeting his beautiful wife,
And isn't it ironic..? don't you think?
A little too ironic..? and, yeah, I really do think...

It's like rain on your nomination day,
It's a free ride when you've already been paid,
It's the dignified exit that you just wouldn't make...
Who would've thought..? Low figures.

General General

starbelgrade wrote: »

Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir - the head of state of Iceland* - is gay.


* = the country, not the supermarket.

Has the supermarket UN recognition too?

Mad.

I hope Plasticine gets recognition.

LordSutch

Final outcome in three weeks time, a toss up between Michael D, and Sean G.

50/50 either way at this point, with three weeks to go . . . . . .

Morlar

LordSutch wrote: »

Final outcome in three weeks time, a toss up between Michael D, and Sean G.

50/50 either way at this point, with three weeks to go . . . . . .

I know you would really really really like to, but I wouldn't rule out Martin McGuinness just yet. 'Many's the slip twixt cup and lip' and all that.

I predict Michael D will slip back a few points and Gallagher will also drop down a bit more once people look at the substance behind them and all the frenetic media scrutiny of Norris and McGuinness dies down a bit more.

Norris does seem to be gone, the chances of him revealing the exact amount in disability funds and revealing the letters would be his only hope at this stage I think. However he is not stupid, and there has to be a good reason why he has not revealed the letters up to now.

Mitchell & FG are rightly rewarded for the pure negativity and general slyness. Mitchell is not even getting FG voters support which says a lot. I think from here on in Mitchell will stop defining his proposed presidency in terms of his anti-McGuinness-ness and may claw back slightly but not enough. Davis and Dana were never that likely. Unless one of them comes out as a lesbian to pickup on some of those 'first non heterosexual President of Ireland' buzz voters they are gone too.

Spread

As Norris keeps shooting himself in the foot ........... I'm wondering if that really is a gun in his pocket

Sam Vimes

cowzerp wrote: »

Never mind been ruled by them, we want to be fully independent of them, we did not leave the common wealth for the craic!

It's a load of rubbish and everyone knows that.

The commonwealth is an inter governmental organisation of independent states. Britain is just another member if it, just like Ireland is a member of the EU and the UN. Honestly, I think you're confusing the Commonwealth of Nations with the British Empire.

cowzerp

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The commonwealth is an inter governmental organisation of independent states. Britain is just another member if it, just like Ireland is a member of the EU and the UN. Honestly, I think you're confusing the Commonwealth of Nations with the British Empire.

Queen Elizabeth is the head if the common wealth ,common wealth coy tries are not meant to be foreign from each other, the english language is seen to be a symbol of the common wealth countries heritage too!

That's enough for me, it's bad enough having Norris going for the president without us having the British queen as our figurehead

dvpower

cowzerp wrote: »

That's enough for me, it's bad enough having Norris going for the president without us having the British queen as our figurehead

If Dana wins and we join the CW, we could have an American AND a British figurehead.:eek:

Sunnyisland

Lord Sutch wrote: »

Final outcome in three weeks time, a toss up between Michael D, and Sean G.

50/50 either way at this point, with three weeks to go . . . . . .

Going by a few of your past predictions on boards over the last few months,I am going to wait to nearer the date of election before i would be calling it as your call is based on what you would wish for instead of the reality of the situation.;):)

Sam Vimes

cowzerp wrote: »

Queen Elizabeth is the head if the common wealth ,common wealth coy tries are not meant to be foreign from each other, the english language is seen to be a symbol of the common wealth countries heritage too!

That's enough for me, it's bad enough having Norris going for the president without us having the British queen as our figurehead

Right, but the fact remains that being in the Commonwealth wouldn't make us any less independent and wanting Ireland to be in it does not make one a unionist

Dionysus

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The commonwealth is an inter governmental organisation of independent states. Britain is just another member if it, just like Ireland is a member of the EU and the UN. Honestly, I think you're confusing the Commonwealth of Nations with the British Empire.

For "just another member" of the British Commonwealth - or "Commonwealth of Nations" as they're now dressing it up as since the collapse of the British Empire - it's fairly strange indeed that the British head of state is the only person who is, or can be, head of it. Given this reality, your comparison with Ireland's membership of the EU and UN is disingenuous.

The British Commonwealth is patently about Britain trying to cling on to a powerbase which it created through the British Empire; without the British Empire the British Commonwealth wouldn't exist. Fact. In its origin and present incarnation it is merely about British people of a more nationalistic bent deluding themselves that Britain is still a great world power. Embarrassing stuff altogether. As has been said already, it offers nothing to Ireland.