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

Phill Ewinn

RTE defending the FF/FG agenda once again.

Shamefull TV. Biased rubbish IMO.

Craebear

The fact so many will be voting for McGuinness almost scares me and leaves me dissapointed. How stupid can you be?

And before you ask, no I won't be voting Mitchell. Norris or Michael D is what I'd vote for at this stage. Leaning towards Michael D right now.

Nodin

Craebear wrote: »

The fact so many will be voting for McGuinness almost scares me and leaves me dissapointed. How stupid can you be?.

Don't you worry about it.

Pompey Magnus

Craebear wrote: »

The fact so many will be voting for McGuinness almost scares me and leaves me dissapointed. How stupid can you be?

I don't know. Why don't you tell us just how stupid we are?

cowzerp

Craebear wrote: »

The fact so many will be voting for McGuinness almost scares me and leaves me dissapointed. How stupid can you be?

Norris or Michael D is what I'd vote for at this stage.

Really!! some might say people voting that way are stupid.

Morlar

cowzerp wrote: »

Really!! some might say people voting that way are stupid.

Or they are just too busy trying not to laugh.

fishy fishy

Craebear wrote: »

The fact so many will be voting for McGuinness almost scares me and leaves me dissapointed. How stupid can you be?

And before you ask, no I won't be voting Mitchell. Norris or Michael D is what I'd vote for at this stage. Leaning towards Michael D right now.

if you actually read up on the facts you won't be scared and disappointed, except of course, for the way the media are trying to shove something down your throat that isn't true (whats new).

Good luck with voting for Michael D - I'm sure RTE will be delighted

old hippy

On second thoughts, I hope everyone does vote for alleged murderous sectarian criminal McGuinness. Stick him in the Arras (ooer) out of harms way. The only thing we have to worry about is that oath. Where does the allegiance truly lie...

Morlar

Always had a soft spot for Mirriam O'callaghan (if you know what I mean) but that performance last night was pretty appaling. I know the role of a journalist in those sit-iyations is to be devils advocate but that should apply equally & to all. Not to a great extent to one candidate and not others, but to all.

That didn't seem to be the case last night. I am starting to think that McGuinness standing in the polls is partly a reaction to the negative campaigning and media bias. It's possible that all this is actually doing his campaign a world of good. Even so it's not a good thing to be reminded of how biased and amateurish rté can sometimes be.

I can't help thinking why has no single journalist mentioned the Michael D. Higgins '****' outburst ?

Pompey Magnus

Morlar wrote: »

Always had a soft spot for Mirriam O'callaghan (if you know what I mean) but that performance last night was pretty appaling.

She does seem to be getting worse with age, she used to be relatively good.

fishy fishy

Morlar wrote: »

Always had a soft spot for Mirriam O'callaghan (if you know what I mean) but that performance last night was pretty appaling. I know the role of a journalist in those sit-iyations is to be devils advocate but that should apply equally & to all. Not to a great extent to one candidate and not others, but to all.

That didn't seem to be the case last night. I am starting to think that McGuinness standing in the polls is partly a reaction to the negative campaigning and media bias. It's possible that all this is actually doing his campaign a world of good. Even so it's not a good thing to be reminded of how biased and amateurish rté can sometimes be.

I can't help thinking why has no single journalist mentioned the Michael D. Higgins '****' outburst ?

Michael D is their golden boy, thats why.

dvpower

cowzerp wrote: »

Martin Mcguinness has no blood on his hands, yes the ira where involved with murders but Mcguinness never got charged or even accused of murder ever

That's pretty naive tbh. I think pretty much everyone accepts that MMcG held a leadership role in the IRA at a time when many murders were carried out by them. He must hold some responsibility for these murders.

Happyman42

Craebear wrote: »

almost scares me

Scares you?????

Have you ever walked past a car and wondered as the cold sweat runs down your back, 'will it explode'?

Have you ever lived in a house where a wall was built in breeze block just inside the front door, to stop somebody shooting you through it?

Have you ever run into a UDR checkpoint where you recognise the voice of a neighbour and know that if you acknowledge it, that you might end up dead?

Have you ever run into the back of a British Army duck patrol?

Have you ever driven into the middle of an ad hoc hostile Orange march on a lonely border road at dusk?

Have you ever had an adrenalin rush when a bomb explodes in your town and you realise that your sisters have just left the house, heading towards it?

Scared? Get a grip.

Look to the people who stop you feeling scared.

Jonniealan

You couldn't write this its starting to resemble some cruel reality TV show where they get people who are delusional and on the verge of a breakdown and ask them stupid questions.

McGuiness is looking more sinister as the campaign goes on....15 years ago he'd have had Miriam O'callaghan and Lurch ( Mitchell) Knee-capped ! he looks like an undertaker not a president!

Best of a bad bunch has to be Gallagher

Morlar

Jonniealan wrote: »

McGuiness is looking more sinister as the campaign goes on....15 years ago he'd have had Miriam O'callaghan and Lurch ( Mitchell) Knee-capped ! he looks like an undertaker not a president!

Best of a bad bunch has to be Gallagher

15 yrs ago Gallagher would have been swindling millions in dodgy grant swapping/company renaming schemes. Before scarpering off to the canaries.


See how easy it is to make crap up ?

15 yrs ago McGuinness would have been playing a pivotal role in one of the most complex peace processes ever seen.

Happyman42

dvpower wrote: »

He must hold some responsibility for these murders.

Like Mrs Winsdor should be held responsible for the murders carried out by her army?







oh wait....that's different isn't it? :rolleyes:

cowzerp

dvpower wrote: »

That's pretty naive tbh. I think pretty much everyone accepts that MMcG held a leadership role in the IRA at a time when murders where carried out

Speculation-that's all it is, he was never charged with Murder or anything like it.

Plus even the British would have considered him a political prisoner at the time, basically he was not a crinimal but a soldier.

Either way he turned to politics and trying to take the need for the gun out of Irish politics, all the major parties came through the gun also and people seem to be happy to forget that.

Hannibal Smith

Jonniealan wrote: »

You couldn't write this its starting to resemble some cruel reality TV show where they get people who are delusional and on the verge of a breakdown and ask them stupid questions.

McGuiness is looking more sinister as the campaign goes on....15 years ago he'd have had Miriam O'callaghan and Lurch ( Mitchell) Knee-capped ! he looks like an undertaker not a president!

Best of a bad bunch has to be Gallagher

Gallagher, who couldn't answer a straight forward question? :eek: I don't think so

And I don't think it's a 'bad' bunch at all, not with the likes of Norris and Michael D in the running

LordSutch

Theres another Presidential Poll running if you wish to vote? its the RTE Prime Time 48 hour poll, currently running in the 'Elections Forum', click below to vote . . .

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056419036

Jonniealan

Right or wrong there wont be a month that goes by that McGuiness isnt accused of ordering the murder or of knowing who did of someone it will completely discredit the he position plus embarass the country.

Comparisons between him and the founders of the state are not relevant and only shinners could take that seriously.

cowzerp

Jonniealan wrote: »

Comparisons between him and the founders of the state are not relevant and only shinners could take that seriously.

Why not?

is it because he did not murder people and they did?

is it because they fought against there own people when they picked sides in the irish civil war, they where also looked at in the same light as Mcgunness is now within the same time frame, Ignorance is bliss.

Pompey Magnus

Jonniealan wrote: »

Comparisons between him and the founders of the state are not relevant and only shinners could take that seriously.

Ah so you are another of those who has fallen for the propoganda that the Old IRA played by the rules and were respectable freedom fighters compared to the nasty PIRA? Don't worry, you are in good company, plenty of others have also fallen for this ahistorical myth.

blue5000

Q. What is the difference between Dana and Dustin the turkey?


A. If you voted for Dana it wouldn't be a spoiled vote....yet:D

fishy fishy

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

Ah so you are another of those who has fallen for the propoganda that the Old IRA played by the rules and were respectable freedom fighters compared to the nasty PIRA? Don't worry, you are in good company, plenty of others have also fallen for this ahistorical myth.

LOL, what do people thing the "old ira" were doing, hitting people with marbles and sticks or giving them a good clip round the ear. It really is amazing to hear them come out with that old nugget "the old ira" were alright. It magnifies their ignorence to be honest.

I agree, with a previous poster - it was all over the news yesterday about pat finucane solicitor shot 14 times in front of his family, but not a mention of that at all - was nobody going to stand up for him?? Even more bizarre the family were told there will be NO looking into his death - anyone see anything wrong with that? No? it only took 40 years to get the truth about the derry slaughter. but this country of ars*licks don't bother with truths like that - it gets in the way of their ignorence. :rolleyes: and we can't have that now, can we?

Jonniealan

Well unless im mistaken there were no bombs planted with the specific aim to kill and maim innocent civillians. People will say there is no evidence to support McGuiness had any part of this but does anyone really buy that ?

You could say ignorance is bliss of people on bothside of the McGuinness debate. Those that say he has too much civillian blood on his hands ( im in this camp) Does that make me a westBrit ? and those that see him as somekind of romantic freedon fighter.

Either way you see it his whole tenure as president will be overshadowed by serious allegations.

cowzerp wrote: »

Why not?

is it because he did not murder people and they did?

is it because they fought against there own people when they picked sides in the irish civil war, they where also looked at in the same light as Mcgunness is now within the same time frame, Ignorance is bliss.

Morlar

Jonniealan wrote: »

Well unless im mistaken there were no bombs planted with the specific aim to kill and maim innocent civillians. People will say there is no evidence to support McGuiness had any part of this but does anyone really buy that ?

You could say ignorance is bliss of people on bothside of the McGuinness debate. Those that say he has too much civillian blood on his hands ( im in this camp) Does that make me a westBrit ? and those that see him as somekind of romantic freedon fighter.

Either way you see it his whole tenure as president will be overshadowed by serious allegations.

Kind of like his tenure as Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland has been, right ?

I think if elected the media and political campaign to prevent his election will putter to a stop soon enough.

Pompey Magnus

Jonniealan wrote: »

Well unless im mistaken there were no bombs planted with the specific aim to kill and maim innocent civillians. People will say there is no evidence to support McGuiness had any part of this but does anyone really buy that ?

Might have had something to do with the fact that there was a distinct lack of bomb making material and expertise in 1920s Ireland, that may have proved a slight hindrance to the Old IRA carrying this out!

Not to worry though, there is plenty of evidence for them doing the next best things and simply executing innocent law abiding citizens.

cowzerp

Jonniealan wrote: »

Well unless im mistaken there were no bombs planted with the specific aim to kill and maim innocent civillians. People will say there is no evidence to support McGuiness had any part of this but does anyone really buy that ? .

Either way you look at it, in most cases the point of bombs where to cost the British government money-to try make it financially unworkable for them to stay in power up north, they used warning with plenty of time to evacuate-i'm not going to expect people who don't understand both sides of the story to get any of that, also there was wrong doing on all sides in the conflict-nobody is denying this, you only have to look at "legal" wars where they bomb the craap out of civilians and not a word is mentioned, and the likes of Bush, Reagan etc are not even mentioned.

War is not a nice thing, lives will be lost and unfortuantely even innocent civilians get caught up in it, With the Peace process nobody get's hurt, politics is in a position where the nationalist have equal rights so now politics can be used as a tool for there goals, this was not possible at the time loyalist mobs where driving nationalists out of there homes.

Tom

cowzerp wrote: »

Martin Mcguinness has no blood on his hands, yes the ira where involved with murders but Mcguinness never got charged or even accused of murder ever, and to say Murder is never acceptable, why is it legal to muredr someone who enters your home if you feel you live is in danger, sometimes Murder is acceptable and this is not even on the MMG subject.

It is not legal to murder anyone in any circumstances - murder implies pre-meditation. If someone breaks into your house and you are in fear of your life - killing them is self defence not murder and the most you could be charged with is manslaughter.

Now - planting a bomb under someones car is premeditated and is murder.

Deedsie

Tom wrote: »

It is not legal to murder anyone in any circumstances - murder implies pre-meditation. If someone breaks into your house and you are in fear of your life - killing them is self defence not murder and the most you could be charged with is manslaughter.

Now - planting a bomb under someones car is premeditated and is murder.

As is a trained soldier being order to open fire on a group of unarmed civilians... The British government apologise and they are heroes. The PIRA apologies and put their armed struggled to bed and they are murderers...

Hypocrisy!