David Norris - Post-Revelations

HarryPotter41

K-9 wrote: »

Yes but he was about twice the nearest rival. McGuinness and others were included in the earlier polls IIRC.

In the early polls there was no settled candidates for the other parties, no matter how you build it up, he had only 30% which was pointed out earlier was helped by being the first in the race as anyone who studies politics closely will tell you is always a boost. Would have been very difficult even from 30% to get the transfers to get across the line.

Lord TSC

The point still stands that Norris was leading those polls and was thus "the man to beat". As such, he was the biggest target...

Happyman42

A quick look at the demographic on his FB supporters page would indicate that the majority of his support was coming from students and surprisingly women.
I would think from watching the page, that those who jumped ship where the more mature element of his support base as they realised, from life experience, that his position was untenable.
Popularity doesn't always translate into votes.

Dyr

tayto lover wrote: »

They say its part of their culture but to me it is illegal.

an aspect of traveller culture being illegal? f**k me, say it ain't so. :pac:

tayto lover

Alivia Square Alphabet wrote: »

i don't think it only applies to the travelling community,if we took the law as serious there should be alot of non traveller teen dads locked up now.

Yes indeed but the Travellers seem to be doing it with the consent of the state if they give them permission to marry at 16 or even younger.

tayto lover

Bambi wrote: »

an aspect of traveller culture being illegal? f**k me, say it ain't so. :pac:

They are getting permission to marry at 16 or younger FROM the STATE.
Nothing to do with their other imperfections at all.

HarryPotter41

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

The point still stands that Norris was leading those polls and was thus "the man to beat". As such, he was the biggest target...

I agreed with that part, I just don't agree with the theory most people seem to have that he had some sort of huge popularity in the polls that was making him a shoo in.

tayto lover

HarryPotter41 wrote: »

I agreed with that part, I just don't agree with the theory most people seem to have that he had some sort of huge popularity in the polls that was making him a shoo in.

He is creeping up in the Boards poll because it is of no consequence anymore. The pro Norris people are on their own now because the poll is irrelevant. Why people are continuing to vote amazes me.

dvpower

tayto lover wrote: »

He is creeping up in the Boards poll because it is of no consequence anymore.

Did it used to have consequences?:eek:

K-9

HarryPotter41 wrote: »

In the early polls there was no settled candidates for the other parties, no matter how you build it up, he had only 30% which was pointed out earlier was helped by being the first in the race as anyone who studies politics closely will tell you is always a boost. Would have been very difficult even from 30% to get the transfers to get across the line.

He was comfortably ahead of prospective candidates and still ahead when support solidified behind the actual nominated candidates, the initial boost was gone by then, especially after the Magill controversy.

I'd say he could have been transfer friendly without the scandal, I don't know or you don't know that so it's pretty pointless debating it. His support kept pretty steady and he was still the front runner, that much is certain.

Happyman42

K-9 wrote: »

comfortably

That's the stretch bit ^^

HarryPotter41

K-9 wrote: »

He was comfortably ahead of prospective candidates and still ahead when support solidified behind the actual nominated candidates, the initial boost was gone by then, especially after the Magill controversy.

I'd say he could have been transfer friendly without the scandal, I don't know or you don't know that so it's pretty pointless debating it. His support kept pretty steady and he was still the front runner, that much is certain.

In the July poll he was in no way comfortably ahead, I don't know how you came to that conclusion

K-9

Happyman42 wrote: »

That's the stretch bit ^^

HarryPotter41 wrote: »

In the July poll he was in no way comfortably ahead, I don't know how you came to that conclusion

And

K-9 wrote:

He was comfortably ahead of prospective candidates and still ahead when support solidified behind the actual nominated candidates

CrystalLettuce

prinz wrote: »

Says the person desperately trying to do the same with Gay Mitchell. :pac: Would I care that an elected representative was trying to use their position to influence the trial/sentencing of their one-time lover, particularly in a crime we are all mostly, apparently some people don't see it, agreed is despicable? Yes I would care, and I have put my critical faculties to great use.

I'm doing the same with Gay Mitchell because it's hypocritical to ignore what he did when it has a much worse basis.

Yet you try and spin the hypocrisy on me. Unbelievable how dishonest you people are.

CrystalLettuce

Happyman42 wrote: »

A quick look at the demographic on his FB supporters page would indicate that the majority of his support was coming from students and surprisingly women.
I would think from watching the page, that those who jumped ship where the more mature element of his support base as they realised, from life experience, that his position was untenable.
Popularity doesn't always translate into votes.

I hate when people(or conservatives rather, who don't act like real people a lot of the time) pull the "maturity" ****, you're more mature if you agree with me.

Another defender of Mr. Yitzhak, Naomi Klein, wrote a lot of interesting stuff on "Disaster Capitalism" - the Phenomenon where governments take advantage of bad situations such as disasters or economic issues to push forward pro-corporate, anti-worker&welfare measures. We've seen it happen here in Ireland. And the bull**** with greece - they literally cannot afford to take any more cuts. Their cost of living is higher than even Ireland's and the most a young worker can hope to take home is €700 a week. 2 in 5 live formal poverty. It's madness.

But you still see dishonest people like you defending these kind of right wing decisions, many of which have no bearing on the economy or can even make it worse. Another example is cutting of funding to the arts - a source of revenue. A study in the UK showed for every pound they put into the arts, they get 3 back. This is purely right wing ideology. It's all about the mature, sensible thing to do, which makes absolutely no sense and is only mature in that those of an older generation may be more likely to agree with it.

The day this kind of idiotic social conservatism is obliterated from mainstream politics is the day we can finally move forward. Those who turned against Norris caved into a smear campaign - maybe for some it was a big enough issue to genuinely drop support, but many clearly don't have a clue what actually happened. Acting like the least informed are the most mature is typical of these right wing "disaster" politics.

prinz

CrystalLettuce wrote: »

I'm doing the same with Gay Mitchell because it's hypocritical to ignore what he did when it has a much worse basis. Yet you try and spin the hypocrisy on me. Unbelievable how dishonest you people are.

Ignore what he did? He made a representation, publicly and above board, like many other similar representations in other cases he has made publicly and above board, as public official in a country and a union which is steadfastly against the use of the death penalty. How is that a "worse basis" than a politician using their office to help out someone because of their past personal relationship? Seriously this is mindboggling stuff that some people are still unwilling to see the difference in the two cases.

Did Gay Mitchell give a personal assurance to the Florida Governor that that murderer would never reoffend? Did Mitchell insinuate he was the victim of corrupt police practices?

CrystalLettuce

HarryPotter41 wrote: »

If homophobia is so rampant in this country how come the revelations about Emmett Stagg in 1994 being found with a gay man in the cruising area of the Phoenix Park had no affect at all on his political career, he wasn't asked to resign and he has been elected at every election since. This homophobic straw man that is put up continually by David Norris supporters is ridiculous.

Says someone who is no doubt a heterosexual man who has never had to experience a drop of it in your life. And of course, there are some sheltered homosexuals too who have not experienced the issues most have. I know from personal experience and through friends homophobia and general enforcement of gender roles is still rampant in this country. Your privilege is showing here and you have no ground to stand on.

This is exactly what I hate about conservative, right wing politics - both socially and economically it is based almost purely on not caring or coming to understand the situations of people in different situations to that of your own and your immediate social circle.

K-9

CrystalLettuce wrote: »

Says someone who is no doubt a heterosexual man who has never had to experience a drop of it in your life. And of course, there are some sheltered homosexuals too who have not experienced the issues most have. I know from personal experience and through friends homophobia and general enforcement of gender roles is still rampant in this country. Your privilege is showing here and you have no ground to stand on.

This is exactly what I hate about conservative, right wing politics - both socially and economically it is based almost purely on not caring or coming to understand the situations of people in different situations to that of your own and your immediate social circle.

I see plenty of people who'd be opposed to Gay Mitchell anyway, he doesn't really need the death penalty letter for that!

CrystalLettuce

prinz wrote: »

Ignore what he did? He made a representation, publicly and above board, like many other similar representations in other cases he has made publicly and above board, as public official in a country and a union which is steadfastly against the use of the death penalty. How is that a "worse basis" than a politician using their office to help out someone because of their past personal relationship? Seriously this is mindboggling stuff that some people are still unwilling to see the difference in the two cases.

One could easily say an opposition to the harsh nature of Israeli law fueled

It's being purposely selective.

http://www.thejournal.ie/calls-for-mitchell-to-explain-letter-seeking-clemency-for-double-murderer-193038-Aug2011/

This comment says it quite well:

"Except that is the case of a woman being stoned to death on the basis of Sharia Law, if that is the only other evidence of his campaigning against the death penalty then you have 1 letter for an anti abortion murderer and one statement against a Sharia Law execution. Amnesty International he aint."

People are just back peddling as to why Norris gets a harsher treatment than Mitchell. Please knock it off. There are only 2 real examples here, being against Sharia Law and defending an anti-abortion murderer could be seen as a typical western conservative thing to do, rather than being against the death penalty.

The crimes Mitchell sought Clemency for were much worse, and even if you think they were justified they could still be equally seen as an abuse of position. Have you even read the Norris letter? The big issue was the mishandling of the arrest - he wasn't even allowed consult his lawyer for advice. Either it's wrong to intervene with public office or it isn't. Which is it?

This just proves what I said earlier - the people taking "Moral" offense to Norris have none themselves. It's just dishonesty, and I'm getting tired of using that word but it is.

Android 666

CrystalLettuce wrote: »

The most a young worker can hope to take home is €700 a week.

€700 a week is hardly a shabby amount of money. Am I meant to find that upsetting?

Happyman42

CrystalLettuce wrote: »

I hate when people(or conservatives rather, who don't act like real people a lot of the time) pull the "maturity" ****, you're more mature if you agree with me.

Another defender of Mr. Yitzhak, Naomi Klein, wrote a lot of interesting stuff on "Disaster Capitalism" - the Phenomenon where governments take advantage of bad situations such as disasters or economic issues to push forward pro-corporate, anti-worker&welfare measures. We've seen it happen here in Ireland. And the bull**** with greece - they literally cannot afford to take any more cuts. Their cost of living is higher than even Ireland's and the most a young worker can hope to take home is €700 a week. 2 in 5 live formal poverty. It's madness.

But you still see dishonest people like you defending these kind of right wing decisions, many of which have no bearing on the economy or can even make it worse. Another example is cutting of funding to the arts - a source of revenue. A study in the UK showed for every pound they put into the arts, they get 3 back. This is purely right wing ideology. It's all about the mature, sensible thing to do, which makes absolutely no sense and is only mature in that those of an older generation may be more likely to agree with it.

The day this kind of idiotic social conservatism is obliterated from mainstream politics is the day we can finally move forward. Those who turned against Norris caved into a smear campaign - maybe for some it was a big enough issue to genuinely drop support, but many clearly don't have a clue what actually happened. Acting like the least informed are the most mature is typical of these right wing "disaster" politics.

Try analysing something small scale first, like the Norris debacle.
You need to walk before you can run. Something the 'a little knowledge is a dangerous thing' amateur social commentators in this country needs to know.

CrystalLettuce

Android 666 wrote: »

€700 a week is hardly a shabby amount of money. Am I meant to find that upsetting?

****, I meant a month. Blargh.

Biggins

I think we have gotten way off track/topic in some areas here.

Back on topic - I yet again find it deeply disturbing AND OBVIOUS that there is one rule for some in this country if they are part of a mainstream political party and another rule for any one else that might try stealing their thunder.

We now have Gay Mitchell seeking clemency for a man that KILLS against a man that once asked for his then lover sentence to be changed for a legal assault.

One is basic getting a near free pass with little or no calls for him to quit the presidents race - while the other was hounded out by a lot that in all honesty, wanted to see him gone from the start anyway with their relentless ire and vitriol - and we can only guess individually as to their underlying reasons!

Welcome to the hypocrisy that is Irish politics.

CrystalLettuce

Happyman42 wrote: »

Try analysing something small scale first, like the Norris debacle.
You need to walk before you can run. Something the 'a little knowledge is a dangerous thing' amateur social commentators in this country needs to know.

We've been doing this all the thread but the general intellectual dishonesty of people such as yourself has made it difficult. I'm just pointing out where a lot of that dishonesty comes from, this idea conservatives have of being "mature" which doesn't tend to align with reality as often as they'd like it to, so they just wait for a good chance to push it, when people are panicing or vulnerable.

Sir Oxman

CrystalLettuce wrote: »

I hate when people(or conservatives rather, who don't act like real people a lot of the time) pull the "maturity" ****, you're more mature if you agree with me.

Another defender of Mr. Yitzhak, Naomi Klein, wrote a lot of interesting stuff on "Disaster Capitalism" - the Phenomenon where governments take advantage of bad situations such as disasters or economic issues to push forward pro-corporate, anti-worker&welfare measures. We've seen it happen here in Ireland. And the bull**** with greece - they literally cannot afford to take any more cuts. Their cost of living is higher than even Ireland's and the most a young worker can hope to take home is €700 a week. 2 in 5 live formal poverty. It's madness.

But you still see dishonest people like you defending these kind of right wing decisions, many of which have no bearing on the economy or can even make it worse. Another example is cutting of funding to the arts - a source of revenue. A study in the UK showed for every pound they put into the arts, they get 3 back. This is purely right wing ideology. It's all about the mature, sensible thing to do, which makes absolutely no sense and is only mature in that those of an older generation may be more likely to agree with it.

The day this kind of idiotic social conservatism is obliterated from mainstream politics is the day we can finally move forward. Those who turned against Norris caved into a smear campaign - maybe for some it was a big enough issue to genuinely drop support, but many clearly don't have a clue what actually happened. Acting like the least informed are the most mature is typical of these right wing "disaster" politics.

Mitchell has a whole thread devoted to his goings on if you'd bother to look.

Actually don't bother, already one poster on that thread has taken to labelling each and every poster questioning Mitchell as hysterical, broken-hearted Norris supporters and 'dishonest' - wouldn't want to feed his stupid, wrong impressions now would ya?

Happyman42

CrystalLettuce wrote: »

We've been doing this all the thread but the general intellectual dishonesty of people such as yourself has made it difficult. I'm just pointing out where a lot of that dishonesty comes from, this idea conservatives have of being "mature" which doesn't tend to align with reality as often as they'd like it to, so they just wait for a good chance to push it, when people are panicing or vulnerable.

I think you'll find it was Davis Norris who came face to face with 'real life' this week.

val_jester

Biggins wrote: »

I think we have gotten way off track/topic in some areas here.

Back on topic - I yet again find it deeply disturbing AND OBVIOUS that there is one rule for some in this country if they are part of a mainstream political party and another rule for any one else that might try stealing their thunder.

We now have Gay Mitchell seeking clemency for a man that KILLS against a man that once asked for his then lover sentence to be changed for a legal assault.

One is basic getting a near free pass with little or no calls for him to quit the presidents race - while the other was hounded out by a lot that in all honesty, wanted to see him gone from the start anyway with their relentless ire and vitriol - and we can only guess individually as to their underlying reasons!

Welcome to the hypocrisy that is Irish politics.

Are they not two completely different situations? Mitchell asked that the man be sentenced to life in prison as opposed to him being sentenced to death. This is an entirely different type of case. Norris has also written similiar letters on behalf of prisoners in america and elsewhere. There is a major difference between the two stories.

HarryPotter41

CrystalLettuce wrote: »

Says someone who is no doubt a heterosexual man who has never had to experience a drop of it in your life. And of course, there are some sheltered homosexuals too who have not experienced the issues most have. I know from personal experience and through friends homophobia and general enforcement of gender roles is still rampant in this country. Your privilege is showing here and you have no ground to stand on.

This is exactly what I hate about conservative, right wing politics - both socially and economically it is based almost purely on not caring or coming to understand the situations of people in different situations to that of your own and your immediate social circle.

Wooo, do you ever make presumptions about people. Firstly it may amaze you that I also know gay people and they have no problem in society bar the odd one or two clueless clowns, who in fairness exist everywhere and target everyone different purely because they are neanderthal. So you assume I do not car about people? Nice, especially seeing as you know nothing about me. I grew up in a small farming, working class background, widowed mother who did without so we could have something. I saw many dinners as a child where we had meat but she didn't because it was either we got it or she got it. I know plenty about other people. I do not fulfill the self serving stereotype you are wanting me to, so sorry for you on that point. I notice that you don't seem to care greatly for the victim of David Norris' partner, and indeed it took 14 years for David Norris to care for the victim. Mind yourself on your leaps of judgement, you may hurt yourself.

Biggins

val_jester wrote: »

Are they not two completely different situations? Mitchell asked that the man be sentenced to life in prison as opposed to him being sentenced to death. This is an entirely different type of case. Norris has also written similiar letters on behalf of prisoners in america and elsewhere. There is a major difference between the two stories.

No.

BOTH was asking for clemency.

One man was convicted of killing someone.
One man was convicted of sexual assault.

Which is the legally lesser crime?
Yet who was forced to quit of the two crimes?

CrystalLettuce

Happyman42 wrote: »

I think you'll find it was Davis Norris who came face to face with 'real life' this week.

I think I'll find, as usual, your reasoning behind this post is non existent and it's yet more useless irrational **** proclaiming your side to be the more mature with no real reason given why.