Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

John Bruton For President?

Options
2

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Winty
    Registered Users Posts: 1,033 ✭✭✭Winty


    aDeener wrote: »
    id like to see john hume run for it

    + 1 John Hume


  • Options
    #33
    danbohan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,914 ✭✭✭danbohan


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    I was quoting him, actually.

    were you indeed , do refresh me


  • Options
    #34
    danbohan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,914 ✭✭✭danbohan


    Winty wrote: »
    + 1 John Hume

    john hume would make excellant president , not sure how his health is though


  • Options
    #35
    lugha
    Registered Users Posts: 3,235 ✭✭✭lugha


    I think John Bruton would make a very president. Unfortunately he hasn't murdered anyone or isn't tainted by corruption so I don't think he has a prayer with the Irish electorate. :)

    I would prefer to continue the trend of the last two presidents and go for someone other than a (retiring) career party politician. Personally I would like to see David Norris get it. Alas, the Irish electorate will cheerfully forgive the gravest of sins committed by politicians, but are very firm on how their public reps should conduct themselves in their bedrooms. :(


  • Options
    #36
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,792 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    danbohan wrote: »
    were you indeed , do refresh me
    You have a short memory.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    danbohan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,914 ✭✭✭danbohan


    aDeener wrote: »
    i highly doubt he would be viewing protestantism in a negative light considering protestants huge contribution to the republican movement. so that is not true what you are saying about dan


    absolutley , oscar brava likes to misconstrue the facts for his own narrow points


  • Options
    #38
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,792 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    danbohan wrote: »
    absolutley , oscar brava likes to misconstrue the facts for his own narrow points
    Dude, I was quoting you. I'm not sure what there is to misconstrue.


  • Options
    #39
    round tower huntsman
    Registered Users Posts: 804 ✭✭✭round tower huntsman


    Wide Road wrote: »
    I heard that John Bruton is expected to be a candidate for president of Ireland according to MEP Sean Kelly. Sean said he would be interested himself but thought John would be the FG candidate. It would have made a fairytale ending, John as President in the Park and his brother Richard as Taoiseach in the Dail.
    no way,then we'd have to see him met the quuen and quite possibly witness him ejaculate in his trousers as he got to courtsy her highness:rolleyes:


  • Options
    #40
    aDeener
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,487 ✭✭✭aDeener


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    I was quoting him, actually.

    really now? because nowhere did i see danbohan refer to protestantism here


  • Options
    #41
    trapsagenius
    Closed Accounts Posts: 410 ✭✭trapsagenius


    lugha wrote: »
    I think John Bruton would make a very president. Unfortunately he hasn't murdered anyone or isn't tainted by corruption so I don't think he has a prayer with the Irish electorate. :)

    I would prefer to continue the trend of the last two presidents and go for someone other than a (retiring) career party politician. Personally I would like to see David Norris get it. Alas, the Irish electorate will cheerfully forgive the gravest of sins committed by politicians, but are very firm on how their public reps should conduct themselves in their bedrooms. :(

    David Norris???No thank you.The next president of Ireland, barring unforseen circumstances, will be in power for the 2016 commerations.Forgive me if I don't want a man who erroneously refers to the 1916 rebels as "terrorists" to be president.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    aDeener
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,487 ✭✭✭aDeener


    trapsagenius wrote: »
    David Norris???No thank you.The next president of Ireland, barring unforseen circumstances, will be in power for the 2016 commerations.Forgive me if I don't want a man who erroneously refers to the 1916 rebels as "terrorists" to be president.

    he does? not that i would vote for him anyway...


  • Options
    #43
    lugha
    Registered Users Posts: 3,235 ✭✭✭lugha


    trapsagenius wrote: »
    David Norris???No thank you.The next president of Ireland, barring unforseen circumstances, will be in power for the 2016 commerations.Forgive me if I don't want a man who erroneously refers to the 1916 rebels as "terrorists" to be president.

    They 1916 lads used violent means without having the support of the people they claimed to represent, on the basis that future generations would appreciate their actions. And in this respect they are identical to modern day dissident republicans. But I guess people of all hues are reluctant to give up their heroes.

    Anyway, President David, like any other president will be led and said by the government of the day.


  • Options
    #44
    Wolfe Tone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,670 ✭✭✭✭Wolfe Tone


    There is no way Norris will win, too controversial.


  • Options
    #45
    lugha
    Registered Users Posts: 3,235 ✭✭✭lugha


    MUSSOLINI wrote: »
    There is no way Norris will win, too controversial.
    By controversial I guess you mean vice versa? :) But alas I agree. That would probably scupper his chances next time around. Maybe in a decade or two we might be ready for such things.
    But who knows. Politically and in other respects, I don’t see him as being a million miles away from Mary Robinson, and also had no chance when her campaign kicked off.


  • Options
    #46
    charlemont
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,725 ✭✭✭charlemont


    id go along with john hume, but bruton, no way..


  • Options
    #47
    Wolfe Tone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,670 ✭✭✭✭Wolfe Tone


    Norris wont because of his accent and his sexuality.


  • Options
    #48
    lugha
    Registered Users Posts: 3,235 ✭✭✭lugha


    MUSSOLINI wrote: »
    Norris wont because of his accent and his sexuality.
    I don't think the accent is that big a deal. Martin Mansergh has a posh 'aul accent on him and he managed to persuade the fine but not exactly aristocratic folk of Tipp to give him go. No, it's definitely the other thing.


  • Options
    #49
    aDeener
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,487 ✭✭✭aDeener


    lugha wrote: »
    By controversial I guess you mean vice versa? :) But alas I agree. That would probably scupper his chances next time around. Maybe in a decade or two we might be ready for such things.
    But who knows. Politically and in other respects, I don’t see him as being a million miles away from Mary Robinson, and also had no chance when her campaign kicked off.

    pee flynns stupid remarks had a lot to do with that!

    paddy power has norris as their new favourite. can't see it happening. the election is next year but does anyone know when we find out who is putting themselves forward officially?


  • Options
    #50
    nkay1985
    Registered Users Posts: 6,975 ✭✭✭nkay1985


    I'd personally vote for Norris no problem at all. I find him to be very intelligent and respectable. I don't see who there is to challenge him to be honest. Looking through the betting on Paddy Power I don't see anyone else that I'd be happy with actually. Bruton might have a chance alright but I'd take Norris over him any day of the week.


  • Options
    #51
    Wolfe Tone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,670 ✭✭✭✭Wolfe Tone


    lugha wrote: »
    I don't think the accent is that big a deal. Martin Mansergh has a posh 'aul accent on him and he managed to persuade the fine but not exactly aristocratic folk of Tipp to give him go. No, it's definitely the other thing.
    No, the fact that he is a Protestant from a strongly anglo-Irish aristocratic background is important. A man who represents Ireland today? A man to be president and oversee the centenary celebrations of 1916? I don't think so.

    We also have to be careful that this doesn't take on a "if you don't vote for him you are homophobic" slant.
    His oft-articulated view that the leaders of the 1916 rising were terrorists is another potential stumbling block.

    Profile on him

    He also says that we should join the Commonwealth I believe.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,792 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    MUSSOLINI wrote: »
    No, the fact that he is a Protestant from a strongly anglo-Irish aristocratic background is important.
    Why is it important?

    Would you have objected to Douglas Hyde as president?


  • Options
    #53
    Wolfe Tone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,670 ✭✭✭✭Wolfe Tone


    How could his angle-Irish background not be important? I don't think he is a suitable man to be head of state. A man who refers to the 1916 heroes as terrorists? Who wants to join the commonwealth? Is this the type of man we want to represent us? I don't think so.


  • Options
    #54
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,792 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    MUSSOLINI wrote: »
    How could his angle-Irish background not be important?
    Why would it?
    I don't think he is a suitable man to be head of state. A man who refers to the 1916 heroes as terrorists? Who wants to join the commonwealth? Is this the type of man we want to represent us? I don't think so.
    If you don't want to vote for someone as president because you disagree with his views, that's fair enough.

    But not wanting to vote for him because he's Protestant, or because he has English ancestry? That's just sectarian bigotry.


  • Options
    #55
    Wolfe Tone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,670 ✭✭✭✭Wolfe Tone


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Why would it? If you don't want to vote for someone as president because you disagree with his views, that's fair enough.

    But not wanting to vote for him because he's Protestant, or because he has English ancestry? That's just sectarian bigotry.
    I feel that he is not in any way shape or form representative of myself or my family. His outlook and attitudes towards the Irish rebels is distinctly "anglo-Irish" His background has greatly influenced his views no doubt.


    I have nothing against protestants at all, but he is, although I dislike the term, the definition of a "west-brit". Such a person will not become president, rightly or wrongly. The biggest action for the next president will be overseeing the 1916 celebrations. I do not think Norris is the right person for that.


  • Options
    #56
    aDeener
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,487 ✭✭✭aDeener


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Why would it? If you don't want to vote for someone as president because you disagree with his views, that's fair enough.

    But not wanting to vote for him because he's Protestant, or because he has English ancestry? That's just sectarian bigotry.

    jeez man, mussolini is clearly a republican thus he hardly would have any problems with protestants given the history of the republican movement and i feel you know that


  • Options
    #57
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,792 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    aDeener wrote: »
    jeez man, mussolini is clearly a republican thus he hardly would have any problems with protestants given the history of the republican movement and i feel you know that
    I'm sorry, I clearly misunderstood him when he said:
    MUSSOLINI wrote: »
    ...the fact that he is a Protestant from a strongly anglo-Irish aristocratic background is important.
    You seem to suffer from the delusion that anyone who is a republican is somehow incapable of sectarianism.


  • Options
    #58
    Wolfe Tone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,670 ✭✭✭✭Wolfe Tone


    We were discussing why people would NOT vote for Norris. A poster said that the fact he was gay would be the main reason, I raised a few others. I never said they were my reasons did I?


  • Options
    #59
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,792 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    MUSSOLINI wrote: »
    We were discussing why people would NOT vote for Norris. A poster said that the fact he was gay would be the main reason, I raised a few others. I never said they were my reasons did I?
    So you agree that anyone who wouldn't vote for him because he's gay, or because he's protestant, or because he has English ancestry, is a bigot?


  • Options
    #60
    Wolfe Tone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,670 ✭✭✭✭Wolfe Tone


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    So you agree that anyone who wouldn't vote for him because he's gay, or because he's protestant, or because he has English ancestry, is a bigot?
    Not entirely. I feel that as head of state the president has to represent the electorate. If one feels that Norris is not representative of them because of those reasons then they are valid. The Presidency is all about the person, not policies exactly, due to his role as a figurehead with no real power.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,792 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    MUSSOLINI wrote: »
    I feel that as head of state the president has to represent the electorate.
    All of them? Good luck finding that candidate.
    If one feels that Norris is not representative of them because of those reasons then they are valid.
    So anyone who didn't vote for Obama because he's black had a valid reason?


Advertisement