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

Bergkamp 10

efb wrote: »

FF are laughing the whole way to the bank with Seanie G...

how many councillors have asked me to remember him, I'll give him 3.

1.Higgins (up 1)
2. Norris (down 1)
3. Gallagher (same)
4.McGuinness (Why not)

Gallagher is not FF toxic.

Fairly tired of the same ****e being thrown at independant candidates specifically from FG/Labour voters.

Half this country voted for FF or were members at some stage. They didnt make the decisions and Gallagher certainly did not.

And I hate Fianna Fail as much as the next guy and never voted for them.

Morlar

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Letter in the IT today raised some interesting questions:

http://www.irishtimes.com/letters/

I did wonder when I saw that McG had given his bank statements if he had only one account (I, like many people, have 2 - current and cashsave) but didn't actually look at the statements in any detail. The writer of the letter quoted above obviously did - and has raised some interesting points.

Jesus talk about clutching at straws. M.McG has at least opened his bank account to the full glare of the media, despite the lack of any credible accusations of financial wrongdoing. Compare that to your candidate Norris who recieved disability benefit for 16 years at an - undisclosed amount - despite also working fulltime as a senator. Norris has point blank refused to confirm the amount of money he has recieved. Hiding behind the 'oh, just ask Trinners, they know' when he himself is aware they are prevented from discussing the amount of money they paid him as he was too disabled to work for them. Now, why do you think this is ? Why doesn't Norris open his bank accounts or at the least clarify the exact amount he has recieved, it will cost him a phone call to his bank. He has a mobile. This could all be cleared up by - it's 12.33 now, he could be in a press conference at 1pm with a fax to rule this issue out completely. Why do you think that has not happened yet ? Yet his supporters are finger pointing at the ONLY candidate who has actually opened his account to the press. Pure & utter total hypocrisy & double standards. This approach has not worked well for Mitchell and does not score points with the electorate in the way that the people doing the mud-slinging think it does. imo.

c_man

Bergkamp 10 wrote: »

I've got two questions:

1. Firstly was the decision to hold this election on a thursday, another planned attempt by FG/Labour to stop young people voting. Since their candidates are mostly attracting an older vote according to the polls.

It's really not that much effort to a) move your vote or b) register for a postal vote.

This isn't a surprise snap election, there's no excuse bar laziness for people to not have done one of the above.

efb

dvpower wrote: »

Fair enough. I just find the double entendres tiresome to the point of being irritating at this stage.

All the humour has long since been sucked out* of it

*see what I did there

It was fairly harmless tbf, a bit like MMG at this stage.

Bannasidhe

Bergkamp 10 wrote: »

Fairly tired of the same ****e being thrown at independant candidates specifically from FG/Labour voters.

****e like this perhaps?

Based on the P60 information and other details published by Mary Davis, she enjoyed a 13 per cent salary increase between 2008 (€138,000) and 2010 (€156,000), plus fees from State boards of (€185,000) during the same period. This at a time when many thousands of her fellow citizens were made redundant, or forced to emigrate.

http://www.irishtimes.com/letters/

Morlar

For my money the more interesting & relevant IT letter today is this one :

http://www.irishtimes.com/letters/

Sir, – Independent presidential candidate Seán Gallagher expressed concerns, regarding the 2016 centenary celebration of the Rising, about ‘“overly glorifying” the actions of 1916, saying he would not like to see a re-enactment of what happened (in 1916) with lots of artillery or trucks parading down O’Connell Street (Home News, October 4th).

Does Mr Gallagher understand the powers vested in Uachtarán na h-Éirinn? For they include the constitutional requirement to be supreme commander of the Defence Forces (artillery, trucks etc). The same Defence Forces who brought pride and honour to our nation during the recent visit of Queen Elizabeth by their breathtaking ceremonial displays on every formal occasion they attended. What would that visit have been like without the ceremonial participation of members of the Army, Naval Service and Air Corps on our behalf?

The Defence Forces have always done the nation proud, nationally and internationally, from their first overseas UN mission to the Congo in 1960 and every year thereafter. Now, this noble tradition, which was good enough for successive presidents and political administrations to allow the Defence Forces to participate in and validate various State commemorations, apparently, is not to the liking of would-be president, Mr Gallagher, nor does he wish for it in 2016.

The logical reaction by members of the Defence Forces to Mr Gallagher’s misguided attitude and, by extension, their families and friends, is not to vote for him in the upcoming election for, to do so, would be the equivalent of a turkey voting for Christmas! – Is mise,

Comdt FRANK RUSSELL,

Ret’d,

Balscaddan Road,

Howth, Co Dublin.

efb

Bergkamp 10 wrote: »

Gallagher is not FF toxic.

Fairly tired of the same ****e being thrown at independant candidates specifically from FG/Labour voters.

Half this country voted for FF or were members at some stage. They didnt make the decisions and Gallagher certainly did not.

And I hate Fianna Fail as much as the next guy and never voted for them.

He wasn't just a member, (unlike yhn) He was on the executive.

hooradiation

Morlar wrote: »

Jesus talk about clutching at straws.

Wait, so McGuinness has made a point of claiming that the released bank statements shows his monthly income and expenditure but if someone points out that it has some holes you're suddenly incensed and go straight to whining "what about Norris?"

Get out.

Bannasidhe

Morlar wrote: »

Jesus talk about clutching at straws. M.McG has at least opened his bank account to the full glare of the media, despite the lack of any credible accusations of financial wrongdoing. Compare that to your candidate Norris who recieved disability benefit for 16 years at an - undisclosed amount - despite also working fulltime as a senator. Norris has point blank refused to confirm the amount of money he has recieved. Hiding behind the 'oh, just ask Trinners, they know' when he himself is aware they are prevented from discussing the amount of money they paid him as he was too disabled to work for them. Now, why do you think this is ? Why doesn't Norris open his bank accounts or at the least clarify the exact amount he has recieved, it will cost him a phone call to his bank. He has a mobile. This could all be cleared up by - it's 12.33 now, he could be in a press conference at 1pm with a fax to rule this issue out completely. Why do you think that has not happened yet ? Yet his supporters are finger pointing at the ONLY candidate who has actually opened his account to the press. Pure & utter total hypocrisy & double standards. This approach has not worked well for Mitchell and does not score points with the electorate in the way that the people doing the mud-slinging think it does. imo.

I repeated a perfectly valid question asked about McG by a member of the electorate- you turn that into an attack on Norris and sling in a few insults on the way for good measure.

Attack as the best form of defence eh?

So how about you deal with the perfectly valid questions asked and lay off the mud slinging at Norris for a brief moment?

(BTW My candidate is Higgins - made that clear all along.)

K-9

Martin pays the NIE by cash, probably uses the Northern Bank.

Morlar

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I repeated a perfectly valid question asked about McG by a member of the electorate- you turn that into an attack on Norris and sling in a few insults on the way for good measure.

Attack as the best form of defence eh?

So how about you deal with the perfectly valid questions asked and lay off the mud slinging at Norris for a brief moment?

(BTW My candidate is Higgins - made that clear all along.)

'The People of Ireland have moved on'. SF are today the 2nd most popular party in the Republic of Ireland. McGuinness is a close third thus far in the Presidential race.

Bannasidhe

Morlar wrote: »

'The People of Ireland have moved on'. SF are today the 2nd most popular party in the Republic of Ireland. McGuinness is a close third thus far in the Presidential race.

Ah - going for the change the subject tactic now eh?

I didn't say he wasn't high in the polls now did I?

Going to try and address the actual question asked any time soon?

Wow - you do get defensive when the tables are turned.

K-9

The Shinners don't like it up em!

Bannasidhe

Morlar wrote: »

SF are today the 2nd most popular party in the Republic of Ireland.

The results of the last GE would indicate SF are the 4th most popular party:

FG - 76 seats.
Labour - 37 seats
FF - 20 seats
SF- 14 seats

So what figures exactly are you basing your claim on?

Bannasidhe

K-9 wrote: »

The Shinners don't like it up em!

Apparently not.

Bannasidhe

And in the interests of fairness - since I have raised issues about McG's banking details and Davis' pay increase - there is Dana's citizenship.

Independent Presidential candidate Dana Rosemary Scallon has said she never mentioned that she became a US citizen prior to the 1997 presidential election because she "didn't think it would be a problem".

People becoming naturalised US citizens take an oath renouncing their allegiance to all other states.

However, Ms Scallon said she cannot remember taking this oath and that she has dual citizenship.

She has said that she thinks it would be an advantage for the incoming President to have close ties to the US.

http://www.examiner.ie/breakingnews/ireland/dana-i-didnt-think-it-was-a-problem-to-hide-us-citizenship-523515.html#ixzz1a67fyt5W

efb

Bannasidhe wrote: »

The results of the last GE would indicate SF are the 4th most popular party:

FG - 76 seats.
Labour - 37 seats
FF - 20 seats
SF- 14 seats

So what figures exactly are you basing your claim on?

The Red C IT poll.

seamus

Bannasidhe wrote: »

And in the interests of fairness - since I have raised issues about McG's banking details and Davis' pay increase - there is Dana's citizenship.

http://www.examiner.ie/breakingnews/ireland/dana-i-didnt-think-it-was-a-problem-to-hide-us-citizenship-523515.html#ixzz1a67fyt5W

Indeed. Dana's election race was over before it started, but she's properly a no-hoper now. Renouncing your Irish citizenship*? That's a paddling. PP will probably drop the odds from 66/1 to 100/1.

My only concern is that her paltry vote will switch to McGuinness.

*Yes, I'm perfectly aware that she hasn't officially "lost" her Irish citizenship, but even a ceremonial renouncing of it to gain US citizenship looks pretty bad. The US could also choose to revoke her US citizenship for failing to keep to her oath

Bannasidhe

Bannasidhe wrote: »

And in the interests of fairness - since I have raised issues about McG's banking details and Davis' pay increase - there is Dana's citizenship.

http://www.examiner.ie/breakingnews/ireland/dana-i-didnt-think-it-was-a-problem-to-hide-us-citizenship-523515.html#ixzz1a67fyt5W

Dana on radio now saying she did not say she said she doesn't remember making the oath. She says she can't remember the wording of the Oath (keep up folks) but even though the Oath is clear she must renounce her previous allegiance she was assured this didn't apply to her...
She also claims Dev held dual citizenship - maybe she doesn't know that Dev was a U.S citizen by birthright - not naturalisation- so no oath was required. Or that he renounced his US citizenship once it became possible to become an Irish citizen after the declaration of the republic in 1949.

She also wants us to know she is not a liar - she is a Catholic (are they mutually exclusive?) and the article is wrong to say she became a US citizen in 1997 - it was 1999. So that's ok then.

Bannasidhe

So we have:

Norris - born in Africa to Irish mother/English father - entitled to British and Irish citizenship -probably an Irish citizen but sounds posh English. Which is enough for some people to consider him 'not one of us'.

Dana - entitled to British and Irish Citizenship due to being born under British jurisdiction but on the island of Ireland. Apparently swore an Oath in which she renounced Irish citizenship in order to become a naturalised U.S. citizen. Was 'one of us' ..status on oneness not clear now

McGuinness - entitled to British and Irish Citizenship due to being born under British jurisdiction but on the island of Ireland. I would assume he is an Irish citizen but was never actually resident in the Republic. 'One of us'...but did not live among us.

Lord TSC

Morlar wrote: »

Jesus talk about clutching at straws. M.McG has at least opened his bank account to the full glare of the media, despite the lack of any credible accusations of financial wrongdoing. Compare that to your candidate Norris who recieved disability benefit for 16 years at an - undisclosed amount - despite also working fulltime as a senator. Norris has point blank refused to confirm the amount of money he has recieved. Hiding behind the 'oh, just ask Trinners, they know' when he himself is aware they are prevented from discussing the amount of money they paid him as he was too disabled to work for them. Now, why do you think this is ? Why doesn't Norris open his bank accounts or at the least clarify the exact amount he has recieved, it will cost him a phone call to his bank. He has a mobile. This could all be cleared up by - it's 12.33 now, he could be in a press conference at 1pm with a fax to rule this issue out completely. Why do you think that has not happened yet ? Yet his supporters are finger pointing at the ONLY candidate who has actually opened his account to the press. Pure & utter total hypocrisy & double standards. This approach has not worked well for Mitchell and does not score points with the electorate in the way that the people doing the mud-slinging think it does. imo.

Morlar wrote: »

'The People of Ireland have moved on'. SF are today the 2nd most popular party in the Republic of Ireland. McGuinness is a close third thus far in the Presidential race.

I think it's the hypocracy which I love the most when it comes to these sorts of posts. Take everything at face value and don't look into the shadows of MMG. Move beyond the past but continue to call him a hero for what he's done, all the while refusing to move beyond Norris' past. Never let anyone question MMG in anyway, and if they do, change the subject as quickly as possible.

The questions raised are valid; if MMG is all for full disclosure, why has he obviously only disclosed part of his finanical details? You cannot give people some details, tell the others to reveal everything and then react so violently when someone asks if that is actually everything.

Happyman42

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

The questions raised are valid; if MMG is all for full disclosure, why has he obviously only disclosed part of his finanical details? You cannot give people some details, tell the others to reveal everything and then react so violently when someone asks if that is actually everything.

Maybe if our high moral ground media stopped asking the 'Have you stopped beating your wife' type questions about his IRA past we would get answers to those questions.

You wouldn't know hypocrisy if it bit you.

dvpower

Happyman42 wrote: »

You wouldn't know hypocrisy if it bit you.

lol

Lord TSC

Happyman42 wrote: »

Maybe if our high moral ground media stopped asking the 'Have you stopped beating your wife' type questions about his IRA past we would get answers to those questions.

So what then? No candidate should have their past examined at all? We should ignore Norris' letters, or Gallagher's FF past or Dana's religious views? We should just vote for them without knowing anything?

The IRA is a huge part of MMG's life, whether he wants it to be or not. If he wanted to run for president, he should have known that the people he wants to represent were going to ask "Hey, the IRA. What happened there then?". He's the very one who makes his past a campaign characteristic with how he plays up his role in the past troubles, so it's all or nothing. Either everything can be discussed, examined and published, or we ignore everything about all the candidates.

You can't have it both ways. Heaven forbid we have a media who are covering the people who may represent us with a high moral ground :rolleyes:

Bannasidhe

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

You can't have it both ways. Heaven forbid we have a media who are covering the people who may represent us with a high moral ground :rolleyes:

I thought Dana had baggsied the High Moral Ground?

Happyman42

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

So what then? No candidate should have their past examined at all? We should ignore Norris' letters, or Gallagher's FF past or Dana's religious views? We should just vote for them without knowing anything?

The IRA is a huge part of MMG's life, whether he wants it to be or not. If he wanted to run for president, he should have known that the people he wants to represent were going to ask "Hey, the IRA. What happened there then?". He's the very one who makes his past a campaign characteristic with how he plays up his role in the past troubles, so it's all or nothing. Either everything can be discussed, examined and published, or we ignore everything about all the candidates.

You can't have it both ways. Heaven forbid we have a media who are covering the people who may represent us with a high moral ground :rolleyes:

He has answered the questions about the IRA, who no longer exist. If a journalist has DEFINITIVE proof that he is telling lies, produce it. OPINION is of no value here, DEFINITIVE proof is required.
Then the same journalist should tell us all what difference it makes under the terms of The Good Friday Agreement to which 94% of the Irish electorate signed up to.
Because they have NOT done any of that makes them hypocrites for persisting.
The people are making up their own minds anyway, about how important it is.

And yes, his financial affairs like everybody else's should be questioned.

Deedsie

Bannasidhe wrote: »

McGuinness - entitled to British and Irish Citizenship due to being born under British jurisdiction but on the island of Ireland. I would assume he is an Irish citizen but was never actually resident in the Republic. 'One of us'...but did not live among us.

Are you actually suggesting that MMG or any Irish person born in Northern Ireland is somehow less Irish than the rest of us?

Any idea how insulting that is?

Bannasidhe

Deedsie wrote: »

Are you actually suggesting that MMG or any Irish person born in Northern Ireland is somehow less Irish than the rest of us?

Any idea how insulting that is?

No I am not suggesting that for a second.

Where did I say I had an issue with it?

Merely pointing out a bit of background. I also referred to 3 candidates - all of whom are entitled to British and Irish citizenship - Funny how you chose to focus on one of them...

The only person whose 'Irishness' I have seen questioned here is Norris' - on the grounds of his accent.

I absolutely believe everyone born on the island of Ireland is entitled to Irish citizenship - I would prefer if our [possible] future president had actually been resident in the State he seeks to lead.

mike kelly

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I absolutely believe everyone born on the island of Ireland is entitled to Irish citizenship -

absolutely crazy.

Happyman42

Deedsie wrote: »

Are you actually suggesting that MMG or any Irish person born in Northern Ireland is somehow less Irish than the rest of us?

Any idea how insulting that is?

You are spot on Deedsie.
The Irish people will not stand by and watch somebody who stood up for their beliefs (whether they believed the same or not) be denigrated by lazy talkshop moralists like Gay Mitchell. Similarly, they are intelligent enough as a demographic to spot a pig feeding at the trough while telling us all that he is an 'open book'.
Thanks to this forum my vote will be going to McG on this occasion. The mainstream parties have conspired to get so many to vote SF in this election.
Once that Rubicon of voting SF has been crossed they will make incredible gains in the next general election, because if they vote for them once then it is easy to do it again. Michael D Higgins will make the Aras but SF will be the real winners.