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

Happyman42

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Hear That? It's the sound of a deafening silence from the Pro-McG camp on the questions raised about his bank statements.

Lots of rhetoric - few actual answers.

Strange how the same people who were demanding answers about Norris and were quick to accuse his defenders of avoiding dealing with the issues raised are now not so forthcoming with explanations.

And how would his supporters know what his financial arrangements are?

He must answer those questions. Full disclosure applies to all. If he doesn't answer then he is hiding something.
Remind you of anybody in a similar situation that you are defending??????

mike kelly

cowzerp wrote: »

Yes it will, if i find out Mcguinness has sent letters defending a statatory rape offender i will withdraw my support-it's very simple

Anything that can be dug up on MmG has been dragged up over the years, including his republican past-you don't think loyalist just did not bother trying to dig the dirt on MMG.

MMG has been involved in murder, bombings, post office robberies etc

statutory rape, even if he did it himself, is fairly small beans here

cosmicfart

Happyman42 wrote: »

And how would his supporters know what his financial arrangements are?

He must answer those questions. Full disclosure applies to all. If he doesn't answer then he is hiding something.
Remind you of anybody in a similar situation that you are defending??????

I dont see why Norris has to disclose all the information the 'media' are requesting. its not like he is Berty Ahern and is appearing before the Mahon tribunal. Norris's campaign seems to have be derailed for reasons that have nothing whatsoever to do with whether he would make a good or bad president.

cosmicfart

mike kelly wrote: »

MMG has been involved in murder, bombings, post office robberies etc

statutory rape, even if he did it himself, is fairly small beans here

ur are implying things that he 'may' have been involved in at 'some' level many decades ago at a time when the North was at war. You cannot brand him a simple everyday criminal as when there is a war going on certain things you would not normally do, do become necessary .

mike kelly

cosmicfart wrote: »

ur are implying things that he 'may' have been involved in at 'some' level many decades ago at a time when the North was at war. You cannot brand him a simple everyday criminal as when there is a war going on certain things you would not normally do, do become necessary .

you include post office and bank robberies in this state?

Happyman42

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

And now the "Ye have no proof" line gets trotted out

It is what it is. Prove it or accept the answer.

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

But the problem is that while there's no definite proof, it's obvious to a blind man that MMG was involved in the IRA, and that the IRA did commit some terrible actions.

Oh my God!!! McG was involved with the IRA????....have you contacted the press...the police???? What does McG say about this....



..oh wait!!! :rolleyes:

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

Worse, you have a contingency of people who say we understand what he did, who understand the context in which it was done and who believe that it is now in the past", and that those who voted for the GFA and who now want to cherry pick their retribution are competly contradicting themselves.

Fixed that for you.

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

People claim he's a hero in one breath who fought against the English, but then in the next, they turn round and defend him by trying to claim nothing happened! Which is it? Is MMG a hero or did he do nothing? The entire hero complex people have, and which he pushes himself, is based on the actions that no one wants to admit he actually did. It's a stupid nudge and wink scenario where everyone knows he did it, but by trotting out the "You can't prove it" line, he can't be held accountable by those who disagree with what he did.

No heroes, just some very brave people who thrashed an agreement out of chaos and have moved on.
At the moment, in this 'particular' election the integrity of that history is a shining beacon in a sea of celebrity vulgarity and a fog of mundanity!
That is not lost on the Irish electorate.

Crazy Hero worship is complete allegiance to somebody who has been shown to have feet of clay and to be a 'closed book'.

Bannasidhe

Happyman42 wrote: »

And how would his supporters know what his financial arrangements are?

He must answer those questions. Full disclosure applies to all. If he doesn't answer then he is hiding something.
Remind you of anybody in a similar situation that you are defending??????

So is the answer Norris. Norris Norris Norris. Norris.
or is it: War, hero, defender.
or could it be: How dare you even ask?

You were among those who went to town on Norris over his pension. Why is McG any different? Can we not question discrepancies in his statements?

cowzerp

mike kelly wrote: »

MMG has been involved in murder, bombings, post office robberies etc

statutory rape, even if he did it himself, is fairly small beans here

He's never been charged with any of that-pure speculation, That like me saying Norris buggered loads of kids.

cosmicfart wrote: »

I dont see why Norris has to disclose all the information the 'media' are requesting. its not like he is Berty Ahern and is appearing before the Mahon tribunal. Norris's campaign seems to have be derailed for reasons that have nothing whatsoever to do with whether he would make a good or bad president.

1 simple reason, he done it in our name on government headed paper as a member of the seanad-not personally which would strenghten your defense of him.

cosmicfart wrote: »

ur are implying things that he 'may' have been involved in at 'some' level many decades ago at a time when the North was at war. You cannot brand him a simple everyday criminal as when there is a war going on certain things you would not normally do, do become necessary .

well said.

Happyman42

Bannasidhe wrote: »

So the answer is Norris. Norris Norris Norris. Norris.

No.
Again:....McG must answer, because I reckon his supporters are not privy to his bank accounts.

Does David know what an answer is?:D

Bannasidhe

Happyman42 wrote: »

No.
Again:....McG must answer, because I reckon his supporters are not privy to his bank accounts.

Does David know what an answer is?:D

You really need to get over your obsession with David. It's not healthy.

Happyman42

Bannasidhe wrote: »

So is the answer Norris. Norris Norris Norris. Norris.
or is it: War, hero, defender.
or could it be: How dare you even ask?

You were among those who went to town on Norris over his pension. Why is McG any different? Can we not question discrepancies in his statements?

I know McG produced bank statements but try as I might I cannot find any details about him evading further questions on them....can you point me to a source please? I have been a bit out of the loop this morning.

Bannasidhe

Happyman42 wrote: »

I know McG produced bank statements but try as I might I cannot find any details about him evading further questions on them....can you point me to a source please? I have been a bit out of the loop this morning.

Letter to the IT today raised some questions.

Morlar

Bannasidhe wrote: »

You really need to get over your obsession with David. It's not healthy.

You are still a Norris supporter no ?

Bit hypocritical of you to attempt to hold others to a standard infinitely beyond that exhibited by the candidate you support.

Unless I am mistaken just days ago you were telling us how there was no need for Norris to disclose his personal financial details no ?

Am I confusing you with a different norris supporter ? If so apologies in advance.

Happyman42

Bannasidhe wrote: »

You really need to get over your obsession with David. It's not healthy.

I tried getting obsessed about Dana and Davis.......but I kept throwing up...lost 3 stone and got arrested twice in a red dress making lewd gestures with a copy of the constitution.

David is so cuddly! :cool:

Morlar

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Letter to the IT today raised some questions.

I am sure Sean Gallagher will address that in due course.

K-9

squod wrote: »

His salary is paid to SF (by him or directly to SF I dunno). He says he then gets his wage form SF. I presume SF have paid staff and also know how the PAYE system works.

EDit: He's taking on a couple of extra hands when he gets into the Aras which will be covered by the enormous presidential salary.

Yeah, but a Government or any employer would pay the employee, not a political party. It's his wage for being deputy PM, not SF's. I presume they get party allowances which are separate.

If the NI Govt. pay McGuinness, then we haven't had full disclosure, which was how the information was presented.

Happyman42

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Letter to the IT today raised some questions.

Stop being cute Bannasidhe:rolleyes:....I asked for sources showing he had evaded answering 'further questions'.
Could you not wait until he has actually been asked before you get the knifes out? :rolleyes:

K-9

Morlar wrote: »

I am sure Sean Gallagher will address that in due course.

I'm sure he'll put his personal opinions aside when it comes to what the Irish Government and people want for 1916, as will McGuinness, Norris and everybody else running. Otherwise they shouldn't be running.

mike kelly

Morlar wrote: »

I am sure Sean Gallagher will address that in due course.

what are you talking about? what letter?

Morlar

K-9 wrote: »

Yeah, but a Government or any employer would pay the employee, not a political party. It's his wage for being deputy PM, not SF's. I presume they get party allowances which are separate.

If the NI Govt. pay McGuinness, then we haven't had full disclosure, which was how the information was presented.

What does that matter ? The question asked to him was 'what was his income' ?
He has been infinitely more forthcoming on this question than ANY OTHER CANDIDATE.
The question was not how much do you spend on utility bills ?
That is the new question only because the previous question didn't produce any dirt. If there is information such as which utility providers he uses and so on, that was not what was asked to begin with. The goalposts are simply being shifted. It's entirely possible that there are security reasons why he would not disclose every single expenditure. Of the ones which were disclosed, some were redacted, such as which exact items he bought in tescoes on x date, only how much was spent and so on. The man his wife and family are entitled to some basic privacy here. The hypocrisy of the fact that these allegations are coming from NORRIS supporters is beyond ridiculous.

For all practical and realistic purposes what is going on here is that people who are vehemently opposed to McGuinness are desperately clutching at straws trying to smear his name on no basis whatsoever.

There is no suggestion that McGuinness was in receipt of a disability pension for 16 years whilst working fulltime in another job (unlike Norris).

There is no suggestion that he drew 4-500k through attending board meetings unlike (Davis).

Considering the total absence of even a meaningful allegation he has been far more open and honest than the other candidates combined.

In addition to that he has given an assurance that he will not even take the presidential salary in full.

He has publicly stated that he will use it to take 6 young people from a dole queue. Again a standard the no other candidates have agreed to be held to.

Happyman42

K-9 wrote: »

I'm sure he'll put his personal opinions aside when it comes to what the Irish Government and people want for 1916, as will McGuinness, Norris and everybody else running. Otherwise they shouldn't be running.

The way things are going SF may be in a coalition government by 2016.
This election is finally finally turning into a debate about the constituency left behind and those that abandoned the north and sat on the high moral ground. All the while ignoring the fact that this state was born by the gun.
The end game is coming....then we can truly be at peace.
Who's up for it?

Morlar

mike kelly wrote: »

what are you talking about? what letter?

It's a few pages back but 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.

This presidency will cover the period of Centenary celebrations of some of the most fundamental events surrounding the history of the founding of this state.

McGuinness has already spoken of the importance of commemorating things such as the Battle of the Somme and the Ulster Covenant.

K-9

Happyman42 wrote: »

Stop being cute Bannasidhe:rolleyes:....I asked for sources showing he had evaded answering 'further questions'.
Could you not wait until he has actually been asked before you get the knifes out? :rolleyes:

Like you did with Norris!

Morlar wrote: »

What does that matter ? The question asked to him was 'what was his income' ?
He has been infinitely more forthcoming on this question than ANY OTHER CANDIDATE.
The question was not how much do you spend on utility bills ?
That is the new question only because the previous question didn't produce any dirt. If there is information such as which utility providers he uses and so on, that was not what was asked to begin with. The goalposts are simply being shifted. It's entirely possible that there are security reasons why he would not disclose every single expenditure. Of the ones which were disclosed, some were redacted, such as which exact items he bought in tescoes on x date, only how much was spent and so on. The man his wife and family are entitled to some basic privacy here. The hypocrisy of the fact that these allegations are coming from NORRIS supporters is beyond ridiculous.

For all practical and realistic purposes what is going on here is that people who are vehemently opposed to McGuinness are desperately clutching at straws trying to smear his name on no basis whatsoever.

There is no suggestion that McGuinness was in receipt of a disability pension for 16 years whilst working fulltime in another job (unlike Norris).

There is no suggestion that he drew 4-500k through attending board meetings unlike (Davis).

Considering the total absence of even a meaningful allegation he has been far more open and honest than the other candidates combined.

In addition to that he has given an assurance that he will not even take the presidential salary in full.

He has publicly stated that he will use it to take 6 young people from a dole queue. Again a standard the no other candidates have agreed to be held to.

Didn't realise it was Norris supporters making the allegations? Nearly sure it's others who are interested as well.

Tbh I'd no particular interest in what Davis or Gallagher earned from the State either but some were.

The suggestion is McGuinness did indeed disclose his bank account details for the last 6 months, problem is it doesn't seem to account for the full wage he gets. If he just pays the rest to SF, I'm sure he'll have no problem showing it.

No need to get defensive because a Shinner is being asked a couple of questions, he's well used to it down the years.

K-9

Happyman42 wrote: »

The way things are going SF may be in a coalition government by 2016.
This election is finally finally turning into a debate about the constituency left behind and those that abandoned the north and sat on the high moral ground. All the while ignoring the fact that this state was born by the gun.
The end game is coming....then we can truly be at peace.
Who's up for it?

Well you have admitted you think McGuinness is lying about leaving the IRA in 1974, so I'm all up for it.

Morlar

K-9 wrote: »

No need to get defensive because a Shinner is being asked a couple of questions, he's well used to it down the years.

You say 'defensive' I say a natural reaction to the abject hypocrisy and double standards on open display here.

hooradiation

Morlar wrote: »

What does that matter ? The question asked to him was 'what was his income' ?
He has been infinitely more forthcoming on this question than ANY OTHER CANDIDATE.
The question was not how much do you spend on utility bills ?

The released bank statement claimed to show his income and expenditure. It would appear to not do that, unless as speculated he lives in the dark.
How much more forthcoming you believe he is has no relevance.

This is not difficult, nor is it the massive hypocrisy you're pretending it is.
Calm the fuck down.

Morlar

hooradiation wrote: »

The released bank statement claimed to show his income and expenditure. It would appear to not do that, unless as speculated he lives in the dark.
How much more forthcoming you believe he is has no relevance.

The mitchell allegation which former norrisers are now latching onto was that M.McG income was not at a level McGuinness claimed it to be.

The response to that allegation by McGuinness to open his private bank account (within reason).

To refute that spurious mitchell nonsense did not require all McGuinness family household outgoings - to include utility bills. You have as much right to know how much mrs McGuinness spends on tampons as you do to know how much they as a family spend on utilities.

It simply has no bearing whatsoever, was not the question asked, and is an example of goalpost shifting. The question asked did not produce the dirt the person asking the question hoped it would. So the question is simply changed.

The context to this is that Mitchell previously incorrectly claimed that McGuinness drew a westminister salary. The further context to this is that McGuinness has been far more forthcoming about his income than ALL other candidates combined. Despite the fact that it some other candidates have ACTUAL questions to answer in this regard.

hooradiation

Morlar wrote: »

It simply has no bearing whatsoever, was not the question asked, and is an example of goalpost shifting.

The claim that it covered his income and expenditure was made by Sinn Fein, the goalposts are in the same place they've always been

Morlar

hooradiation wrote: »

The claim that it covered his income and expenditure was made by Sinn Fein, the goalposts are in the same place they've always been

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/1005/1224305257227.html

INCOME: PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE Martin McGuinness has published his monthly bank statements in a move to show that his only income is £1,605 (€1,859) per month.

Mr McGuinness yesterday posted copies of his statements going back to May of this year, showing monthly payments into his account of no more than that amount.

The payments come from Sinn Féin, the statement shows.

It also gives details of Mr McGuinness’s outgoings (primarily groceries and retail), although the numbers for those, and for the overall balance, is redacted.

Corsendonk

Modern times, sure Gallagher and McGuinness share bills with their wife/partner.