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

Lord TSC

Happyman42 wrote: »

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

You know it cannot be proven. Thats why people jump so quickly behind that cliche. And whats more, you say prove it, but then we get people making comments like this...

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 .

...where we get people saying "You cannot prove it, but what he did, he was justified in doing". You have people saying you cannot prove it, but then have a lot of people painting him as a brave man who did what needed to be done. What did he do? You get people saying the English who died got what they deserve, glorifying the actions of murderers, but when it comes time to discuss innocent victims, many who died in the same attack, it's back behind the cliches.

It's a cheap debating tactic. Everyone knows the IRA killed people. We know that MMG was a member, and was quite high up in the ground. So are we suppose to believe that while he was high up in power, he had no control over the deaths which happened? Are we supposed to believe he wasn't involved with the actions of the group, just the group itself? What, did he make the t-shirts and tut-tut'd when they came home after a long day of murder?

As I said, "Prove it" is a lazy thing to fall back on because you know it can't be directly proven. It's just the world's worst secret that a lot of people either choose to ignore or feel he was justifed in what he was an aide in orchastrating. It's an attempt to kill any real discussion on what happened, rather than coming out and condemming the innocent murders. Its something used to dodge the real hard questions, cause God forbid anyone actually disagree with what happened and how it happened.

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.

It matters BECAUSE he was forth coming. You cannot pretend to answer a question and then get annoyed when someone points out you've not actually answered it.

jamesie_boy

99% of people on this site are left wingers and liberals. No surprise David Norris leads the poll here.

Bannasidhe

Morlar wrote: »

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.

Supporter of Higgins - Defender of Norris actually.

And may I just say the following in response : Bit hypocritical of you to attempt wriggle out of answering when you were so quick to make accusations.

McGuinness stated it was full disclosure of his income/expenditure. Questions have been raised.

But go on - personally attacking the asker of the question does not deflect from the fact that the question remains unanswered.

old hippy

jamesie_boy wrote: »

99% of people on this site are left wingers and liberals. No surprise David Norris leads the poll here.

Fail

jamesie_boy

old hippy wrote: »

Fail

You people make me sick.

Morlar

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

It matters BECAUSE he was forth coming. You cannot pretend to answer a question and then get annoyed when someone points out you've not actually answered it.

Wrong. The allegations made by Gay Mitchell were that McGuinness recieved a westminister salary. This is proven to be incorrect. The goalposts shifted and the next allegation was that McGuinness personal income was above the level he said it was at , this has also been disproved & accepted by the media and majority of reasonable people :

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74806865&postcount=1231

& also here :


www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/republic-of-ireland/martin-mcguinness-releases-bank-account-details-16059217.html

Martin McGuinness has put pressure on his rivals in the Irish presidential race by releasing details of his bank account for public scrutiny.

The documentation suggests that he receives an income of just over £370 per week after tax.

The Sinn Fein candidate was speaking during a live televised debate on TV3 last night.

Mr McGuinness said that if he was elected, he would only take the average wage.

He was responding to criticism from Fine Gael candidate Gay Mitchell.

“I have today made available my bank account to the media from the Bank of Ireland so they can look at it and see what money was put in by Sinn Fein in my capacity as Deputy First Minister in the north — and I think Gay will get a big shock when he sees it,” he said.

The goalposts have again been moved to why does he not disclose how much his family spends on utility bills ?

old hippy

jamesie_boy wrote: »

You people make me sick.

Careful with that bile, a chara.

arybvtcw0eolkf

jamesie_boy wrote: »

99% of people on this site are left wingers and liberals. No surprise David Norris leads the poll here.

The vast majority of those who voted in this poll did so in the hours following it being published, its way out of date now.

We should really have a new and up to date poll.

Bannasidhe

Morlar wrote: »

Wrong. The allegations made by Gay Mitchell were that McGuinness recieved a westminister salary. This is proven to be incorrect. The goalposts shifted and the next allegation was that McGuinness personal income was above the level he said it was at , this has also been disproved & accepted by the media and majority of reasonable people :

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74806865&postcount=1231

& also here :


www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/republic-of-ireland/martin-mcguinness-releases-bank-account-details-16059217.html



The goalposts have again been moved to why does he not disclose how much his family spends on utility bills ?

Or disclose the details of the bank account the monies from Stormont are paid in to before they are transferred to SF?


[cue attack on Norris....]

Morlar

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Or disclose the details of the bank account the monies from Stormont are paid in to before they are transferred to SF?


[cue attack on Norris....]

What bearing would that have on McGuinness income level ?

Or are you once more trying to shift the goalposts ? I think in american legal drama terms you are on what's called a fishing expedition. Fact is McGuinness has been infinitely more open and transparent than other candidates, despite the fact that the substance of these allegations is Gay Mitchell's imagination. The ridiculous factor levels increase when you consider the other candidates financial affairs, most notably Norris who drew AFTER TAX disability payments of at least €30,000.00 each year for 16 years (despite working full time in a well paid job with unvouched expenses) and he still refuses to even acknowledge the exact amount of disability payments he recieved.

cosmicfart

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

You know it cannot be proven. Thats why people jump so quickly behind that cliche. And whats more, you say prove it, but then we get people making comments like this...



...where we get people saying "You cannot prove it, but what he did, he was justified in doing". You have people saying you cannot prove it, but then have a lot of people painting him as a brave man who did what needed to be done. What did he do? You get people saying the English who died got what they deserve, glorifying the actions of murderers, but when it comes time to discuss innocent victims, many who died in the same attack, it's back behind the cliches.

It's a cheap debating tactic. Everyone knows the IRA killed people. We know that MMG was a member, and was quite high up in the ground. So are we suppose to believe that while he was high up in power, he had no control over the deaths which happened? Are we supposed to believe he wasn't involved with the actions of the group, just the group itself? What, did he make the t-shirts and tut-tut'd when they came home after a long day of murder?

As I said, "Prove it" is a lazy thing to fall back on because you know it can't be directly proven. It's just the world's worst secret that a lot of people either choose to ignore or feel he was justifed in what he was an aide in orchastrating. It's an attempt to kill any real discussion on what happened, rather than coming out and condemming the innocent murders. Its something used to dodge the real hard questions, cause God forbid anyone actually disagree with what happened and how it happened.

Its obvious he was a member and he is hardly going to own up to been involved in any serious way decades later as he now a man of peace and A LOT of the people involved in paramilitary groups have been released under the Good Friday agreement. I think applying some sort of analogy to George Bush and Tony Blair as 'leaders' of their respective party/government in relation to the war in Iraq can be applied to MMG, however, I would label Bush and Blair more dangerous than MMG due to what they did. Bringing up MMG's involvement in the IRA has little to do with the man as he is today but people like you will just use the terrorist label as its suits ur argument/pint/the other person u are voting for.

geetar

Boston Substantial Searcher wrote: »

The vast majority of those who voted in this poll did so in the hours following it being published, its way out of date now.

We should really have a new and up to date poll.

was about to say the same thing.

itd be interesting to see it now, considering the latest opinion polls.

anyway of closing this poll, keeping it, and opening a new one beside it?

Bannasidhe

Morlar wrote: »

What bearing would that have on McGuinness income level ?

Or are you once more trying to shift the goalposts ? I think in american legal drama terms you are on what's called a fishing expedition. Fact is McGuinness has been infinitely more open and transparent than other candidates, despite the fact that the substance of these allegations is Gay Mitchell's imagination. The ridiculous factor levels increase when you consider the other candidates financial affairs, most notably Norris who drew AFTER TAX disability payments of at least €30,000.00 each year for 16 years (despite working full time in a well paid job with unvouched expenses) and he still refuses to even acknowledge the exact amount of disability payments he recieved.

And there it is...attack the others.

Technically the monies McG gets from Stormont are his - yes?
He transfers this money to SF and draws down the basic industrial wage - Yes?

So - given that he claimed he was disclosing his income/expenditure but his 'income' from Stormont is not on the statements - is it really so unreasonable to ask what account does that money go into?

I never attacked him personally. I never attacked any poster here personally. I asked what seems to me to be a very valid question yet it has bought nothing but abuse from the very same people who a few days ago were demanding details of Norris' income.

They now condemn me for defending Norris while simultaneously defending McG. Yet - Norris did not make a big press show of his 'disclosure' - McG did. That disclosure has raised some questions but apparently we are not allowed to question Mr McGuinness.

Ye started this guys....

Morlar

Bannasidhe wrote: »

And there it is...attack the others.

Technically the monies McG gets from Stormont are his - yes?
He transfers this money to SF and draws down the basic industrial wage - Yes?

So - given that he claimed he was disclosing his income/expenditure but his 'income' from Stormont is not on the statements - is it really so unreasonable to ask what account does that money go into?

I never attacked him personally. I never attacked any poster here personally. I asked what seems to me to be a very valid question yet it has bought nothing but abuse from the very same people who a few days ago were demanding details of Norris' income.

They now condemn me for defending Norris while simultaneously defending McG. Yet - Norris did not make a big press show of his 'disclosure' - McG did. That disclosure has raised some questions but apparently we are not allowed to question Mr McGuinness.

Ye started this guys....

Gay Mitchell claimed McGuinness claimed a Westminister salary, McGuinness said - that's incorrect.
Since proven that McGuinness is correct and Mitchell was wrong.

I doubt McGuinness is waiting on that apology from Mitchell but there you go.

McGuinness said he lived on approx the industrial wage.
Mitchell said - absolutely not.

McGuinness then opened his personal bank account to illustrate that he lived on an income of approx £300 or so per week :

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74806865&postcount=1231

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/republic-of-ireland/martin-mcguinness-releases-bank-account-details-16059217.html

Mitchell is now effectively out of the race. As is Norris. In the case of Mitchell largely due to his line in negative campaigning. Norris a series of unanswered questions that in his mind 'The people of Ireland have moved on' from. Norris was also wrong. So now for some bizzare reason the Mitchell approach of 'Wild allegation,->response -> new allegation' is here being continued by largely Norris supporters instead.

Lord TSC

cosmicfart wrote: »

Its obvious he was a member and he is hardly going to own up to been involved in any serious way decades later as he now a man of peace and A LOT of the people involved in paramilitary groups have been released under the Good Friday agreement. I think applying some sort of analogy to George Bush and Tony Blair as 'leaders' of their respective party/government in relation to the war in Iraq can be applied to MMG, however, I would label Bush and Blair more dangerous than MMG due to what they did. Bringing up MMG's involvement in the IRA has little to do with the man as he is today but people like you will just use the terrorist label as its suits ur argument/pint/the other person u are voting for.

1. I wouldn't vote for Bush or Blair either. I wish people would stop trying to compare MMG to people in other countries or events. I'm not being asked to vote for them. I am being asked to vote for MMG.

2. Again I say, you cannot say "We've got to move past the Northern troubles" while also running as a candidate whose entire platform seems to rely on what happened in the past. You also cannot ask people to move past MMG's historical shortcomings while still claiming Norris should answer for his. If we're to simply ignore a major portion of MMG's life, then that has to be applied accross the board, and that's not fair in a debate on who should represent us as a people.

CorkonianRebel

Just a quick question about the eligibility requirements for our President. I assumed that they had to be born on the island of Ireland and be a citizen also. I'm asking as this as you have Dana saying it benefits her to be a US citizen? I presume she has dual citizenship or something and then I hear David Norris is not even born here in Ireland.I looked at his website but I couldnt verify it but it is on his wikipedia page.Thats not known to be totally accurate tho! So whats going on? When Obama ran for the American presidency there was uproar when there was a hint of him not being born in the US. I know comparing the US presidency to ours is kind of silly but the only requirement that I see on the Official President.ie page is that the person is over 35 and be a Citizen.Should it not rule Dana out? She should have just Irish citizenship only. Where was Norris born?

I don't mind either of them winning but surely they should be born here and be a citizen.Then again De Valera was born in the US i suppose!! Maybe I am way off but that rule should be brought in if it has not already.

Bannasidhe

Morlar wrote: »

Gay Mitchell claimed McGuinness claimed a Westminister salary, McGuinness said - that's incorrect.
Since proven that McGuinness is correct and Mitchell was wrong.

I doubt McGuinness is waiting on that apology from Mitchell but there you go.

McGuinness said he lived on approx the industrial wage.
Mitchell said - absolutely not.

McGuinness then opened his personal bank account to illustrate that he lived on an income of approx £300 or so per week :

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74806865&postcount=1231

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/republic-of-ireland/martin-mcguinness-releases-bank-account-details-16059217.html

Mitchell is now effectively out of the race. As is Norris. In the case of Mitchell largely due to his line in negative campaigning. Norris a series of unanswered questions that in his mind 'The people of Ireland have moved on' from. Norris was also wrong. So now for some bizzare reason the Mitchell approach of 'Wild allegation,->response -> new allegation' is here being continued by largely Norris supporters instead.

If you care to actually read what I wrote I never mentioned Westminister. I was very clear. McGuinness was paid a salary of x (I don't give a fiddlers how much it was - that is not what I am querying) amount as deputy leader od the assembly. Correct?

Is he paid in cash or, as seems far more likely - by bank transfer?

Let us conjecture it is the latter...

So - his Stormont salary is paid in to a bank account. It is then transferred to a SF bank account.

SF pays McGuinness a fraction (to be honest) of the salary paid by Stormont.

On the statements McGuinness voluntary provided the payment from SF is clearly indicated but not the original payment from Stormont or the transfer of these funds to SF.

So what bank account is the salary of the Deputy Leader of the Northern Assembly paid into since it does not appear to be paid into the personal account of the person who holds that office?

It could be paid into a SF account....

or

It could be paid into another bank account held by the Deputy leader that has not been disclosed.

Happyman42

David Norris has answered questions about his income, he has not answered follow up questions about his income.....yet.

Martin McGuinness has answered questions about his income, he has not been asked any follow up questions about his income ....yet.

Can somebody show me where this question has been put to him and where his answer, or evasion is?

Morlar

CorkonianRebel wrote: »

I don't mind either of them winning but surely they should be born here and be a citizen.Then again De Valera was born in the US i suppose!! Maybe I am way off but that rule should be brought in if it has not already.

DeValera was born in the US, so he didn't renounce his Irish citizenship to later become an American citizen. Also he fought for Ireland and was sentenced to death for his troubles so I don't think anyone would have genuinely objected on that basis.

I haven't checked but I believe the requirement is A Citizen of Ireland, over 35 yrs of age. In the case of Norris he has at least one Irish parent & is an Irish citizen with no other conflicting dual citizenship/nationality/passport issues. Having said that the way this campaign is going little would surprise me at this stage.

Morlar

Bannasidhe wrote: »

If you care to actually read what I wrote I never mentioned Westminister. I was very clear. McGuinness was paid a salary of x (I don't give a fiddlers how much it was - that is not what I am querying) amount as deputy leader od the assembly. Correct?

Is he paid in cash or, as seems far more likely - by bank transfer?

Let us conjecture it is the latter...

So - his Stormont salary is paid in to a bank account. It is then transferred to a SF bank account.

SF pays McGuinness a fraction (to be honest) of the salary paid by Stormont.

On the statements McGuinness voluntary provided the payment from SF is clearly indicated but not the original payment from Stormont or the transfer of these funds to SF.

So what bank account is the salary of the Deputy Leader of the Northern Assembly paid into since it does not appear to be paid into the personal account of the person who holds that office?

It could be paid into a SF account....

or

It could be paid into another bank account held by the Deputy leader that has not been disclosed.

Ahem.

Bannasidhe

CorkonianRebel wrote: »

Just a quick question about the eligibility requirements for our President. I assumed that they had to be born on the island of Ireland and be a citizen also. I'm asking as this as you have Dana saying it benefits her to be a US citizen? I presume she has dual citizenship or something and then I hear David Norris is not even born here in Ireland.I looked at his website but I couldnt verify it but it is on his wikipedia page.Thats not known to be totally accurate tho! So whats going on? When Obama ran for the American presidency there was uproar when there was a hint of him not being born in the US. I know comparing the US presidency to ours is kind of silly but the only requirement that I see on the Official President.ie page is that the person is over 35 and be a Citizen.Should it not rule Dana out? She should have just Irish citizenship only. Where was Norris born?

I don't mind either of them winning but surely they should be born here and be a citizen.Then again De Valera was born in the US i suppose!! Maybe I am way off but that rule should be brought in if it has not already.

The US constitution state the President must be born in the US - which rules out Arnie ever running (unless they change that).

Norris is entitled to Irish citizenship as his mother is Irish.

I could not find any specific mention in the 1936 constitution as to the citizenship requirement of the office of the President (perhaps others here would know) but Ireland did not become a republic until 1949 - so possibly all those born prior to that on the island of Ireland may have technically been British citizens. I know they can still claim British citizenship but those born after 1949 in the republic can't.

Bannasidhe

Happyman42 wrote: »

David Norris has answered questions about his income, he has not answered follow up questions about his income.....yet.

Martin McGuinness has answered questions about his income, he has not been asked any follow up questions about his income ....yet.

Can somebody show me where this question has been put to him and where his answer, or evasion is?

Where did I say he was being evasive?

I asked a perfectly simple question.

Ye went off on a rant about Norris, flung out some political rhetoric, slung some insults around etc etc.

I'm perfectly prepared to wait and see what McGuinness has to say. And if his answer satisfies me. I'll shut up about it. If there is no answer or I find it doesn't quite answer the question. I'll keep asking.

Simples. :rolleyes:

hondasam

CorkonianRebel wrote: »

Just a quick question about the eligibility requirements for our President. I assumed that they had to be born on the island of Ireland and be a citizen also. I'm asking as this as you have Dana saying it benefits her to be a US citizen? I presume she has dual citizenship or something and then I hear David Norris is not even born here in Ireland.I looked at his website but I couldnt verify it but it is on his wikipedia page.Thats not known to be totally accurate tho! So whats going on? When Obama ran for the American presidency there was uproar when there was a hint of him not being born in the US. I know comparing the US presidency to ours is kind of silly but the only requirement that I see on the Official President.ie page is that the person is over 35 and be a Citizen.Should it not rule Dana out? She should have just Irish citizenship only. Where was Norris born?

I don't mind either of them winning but surely they should be born here and be a citizen.Then again De Valera was born in the US i suppose!! Maybe I am way off but that rule should be brought in if it has not already.

David Norris was born in Leopoldville in the Belgian Congo,his mother is Irish and his father Is English.

Happyman42

hondasam wrote: »

David Norris was born in Leopoldville in the Belgian Congo,his mother is Irish and his father Is English.

Have you seen his birth cert??????????????

Happyman42

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Where did I say he was being evasive?

WTF...we're doing questions by telepathy now?

Bannasidhe

Happyman42 wrote: »

WTF...we're doing questions by telepathy now?

Seriously Happyman. That's just playing to the cheap seats. If that's what you want to do -work away, I've better thing to be doing.

hondasam

Happyman42 wrote: »

Have you seen his birth cert??????????????

No just seen him on the news and he said where he was born.

Happyman42

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Seriously Happyman. That's just playing to the cheap seats. If that's what you want to do -work away, I've better thing to be doing.

Well, forgive me, but an even break is required Bannasidhe, wait until he is asked the question maybe.

Happyman42

hondasam wrote: »

No just seen him on the news and he said where he was born.

Did he name the obstetrician?

Morlar

Happyman42 wrote: »

Did he name the obstetrician?

Was he asked ?