Will you vote for David Norris?

allydylan

there could be a thread like this, but i couldn't find it, so sorry if there is already

So, David Norris isn't certain to be on the ballet paper yet, but none the less, what's your opinion on him?, do you think he'd make a good president? will you vote for him? why or why not?

[you don't need to answer all those questions if you want to post, i'm just listing a few things you could give your opinions on]

in my opinion the president is just a figure head and isn't all that important, so it would be nice in a way if our president was gay. but on the other hand i'm not just going to vote for someone just because there gay

i should point out that i'm not yet 18 and so can't vote

dreamer_ire

I live in NI now so don't have a vote for the elections anymore, but I'm bitterly disapointed with the calibre of the candidates in this years presidental election. My vote would be for Mary Davis, but mainly on the grounds that I couldn't bring myself to vote for any of ther others and I think you should always vote.

While I've been a big supporter of David Norris in the past, and am very grateful to him and Mary Robinson for the work they did to further LGB rights, I would not vote for him because of the message it could send to the rest of the world. I think he is a brialliant acedemic, but I don't believe him to be presidental. I don't believe that his comments on gay men having younger (underage) lovers are appropriate for the President of a country still scared by child abuse scandals. I totally accept that the two are different, but I just think it is too closely linked. So no I would not vote for David Norris, even if I could.

KnifeWRENCH

Before the letters I would have said yes, definitely.
In the wake of the Nawi scandal I said I wouldn't vote for him. But I've been reconsidering recently.

Whether I'd vote for him or not isn't really troubling me until he gets on the ballot. I think it's disgraceful that his name still isn't on the ballot, mostly the result of cowards in Fine Gael trying to block competition for their candidate (who doesn't look like he's going to win anyway)

My top three at the moment are Norris, Higgins and McGuinness. I still haven't decided what order I'll put them in. One thing I know for certain is that every candidate in the election except for Gay Mitchell will get a preference from me. If nothing else, I'll take great pleasure in leaving the box beside Mitchell's name blank.

foggy_lad

I wont give a vote to someone who believes there is nothing wrong with older middle aged even married men using teenagers for their own sexual gratification and calling it life training!

I also wont vote for terrorists or criminals or those living outside the state who have been arrested charged and convicted more than once in the state for possession of firearms and explosives and membership of the IRA. this same person stated in an irish court that he did not recognise the court or the state!

i will happily vote for Mary Davies and Dana and that Cavan businessman but the rest arte not really presidential material.

rainbow kirby

I will not give a vote to Gay Mitchell or Dana, I haven't really made any decisions on how I will order my preferences apart from that.

Coeurdepirate

I'm only 17 so obviously I can't vote, but I have to echo what dreamer said, his comments on older gay men having underage partners was very un-presidential.

BanzaiBk

rainbow kirby wrote: »

I will not give a vote to Gay Mitchell or Dana, I haven't really made any decisions on how I will order my preferences apart from that.

+1

Why every time Dana! Just give it a rest already love...

door

Anybody but McGuinness or Dana, staunch Catholics and terrorists dont appeal to me.

jaffacakesyum

Absolitely not. He shows no characteristics of a good President.

I refuse to vote for someone who has been involved in terrorism so that's McGuinness out too.

Dana, well...need I say more.

Gay Mitchell won't be getting my vote either. So it's a case of who's left of a pretty bad bunch!

I'll probably be voting for Higgins. Despite his awful appearance and annoying voice, I think he would make a good President.

triseke

I honestly don't know who I'l vote for. I like David Norris for all the stellar work he has done, but I don't think i'l vote for him. I never know what he will do/say next and frankly, the president can't be that unpredictable.

foggy_lad

Cork County Council has voted against Norris by 20-9 with 6 abstensions and Donegal has voted for Dana(no surprise there) with the nomination proposed by Fianna Failed and supported by ALL members present.

Meesared

Nominating Dana is a nomination wasted

dreamer_ire

Meesared wrote: »

Nominating Dana is a nomination wasted

Kinda diagree with you Meesared, firstly because I believe that the more choice the electorate have, the better. The other reason I disagree is that any council that nominate Dana would never in a million years nominate David Norris, who unless I'm mistaken is the only other potential candidate.

Coeurdepirate wrote: »

I'm only 17 so obviously I can't vote, but I have to echo what dreamer said, his her comments on older gay men having underage partners was very un-presidential.

Fixed your post

baby and crumble

I won't be voting Norris as a first preference, but he'll probably go down as a 2nd if he's on the ballot. I'll most likely be voting for Mary Davis as she has proven herself to be (in my opinion) very versatile. She also sits on the board of management of the place I am doing my PhD, and has always been a good support and is actually a really nice person to talk to.

In all honesty, the candidates for this election aren't stellar.

1) Higgins: I can't listen to him and he looks like a leprechaun. The headlines round the world will write themselves.

2) Norris: Has attracted too much scandal already, and although his work in some branches of human rights have been remarkable, his failure to understand that most people don't see nor care about the academic debates around pederasty/ certain sexual practices he is wont to indulge in disturbs me. He isn't in touch with the Irish people, and that's a bit of an issue for me. Plus it's possible he won't even be on the ballot.

3) Davis: Pleasant, and hard working and has a huge track record in disability rights and advocacy work to pull from. Having said that, she's not exactly charismatic, and for a largely ceremonial role that involves a lot of public speaking, that could be an issue.

4) Gallagher: He has virtually no political experience. As an entrepreneur, yes, he has a good head on his shoulders but I have no idea where he stands on major policy or human rights issues. I like his straightforwardness, though. Probably my #2.

5) Dana: No. Just, no. The fact that a presidential candidates last job was on 'Celebrity Banesteoir' and she had to pull out just doesn't inspire a whole lot of confidence. Also, anyone who made a name for themselves as a catholic music star in the US can gtfo. And if your wikipedia entry includes this gem, you can stay the hell away from anything to do with me: "She campaigned on family values and her opposition to abortion, contraception and divorce along with a Eurosceptic line on the EU."

6) McGuinness: If you had anything to do with terrorism, except for being against it, you have no place as a head of State.

7) Gay Mitchell: It's like watching paint watch other paint dry.

Dr. Baltar

Before the Nawi scandal, it was a definate yes from myself. Afterwards, I'm not too certain. It's either going to be Higgins 1 and Norris 2 or the other way around. I'm still considering the options.

Anything to keep Dana and Mitchell out.

WonderWoman!

I'm not voting at all the whole thing is a joke if you ask me

Dana ???? REALLY !!!

Annasopra

Hmmm

David Norris was never getting my 1st preference and I am still undecided about the ballot what way I will vote 2-7. I almost always fill out the whole way down.

1) Higgins: I think he is an incredibly inspiring orator - He is a politician with principles that has stuck to those principles over the years and has never been afraid to make an unpopular decision.

2) Norris: Really admire his work but I have to think long and hard about whether he is deserving of my number 2.

3) Davis: Pleasant, but doesn't know much about the constitution; has too many soft FF links for my liking and while I admire her work in the special olympics movement I'm a bit cynical about it.

4) Gallagher: has a lot of political experience in FF. His enterprise and youth work skills are positive though.

5) Dana: Waaay too Conservative - may give her 5,6 or 7.

6) McGuinness: Waaay too Nationalist and provo supporting - may give him 5,6 or 7.

7) Gay Mitchell: Terrible candidate - may give him 5,6 or 7.

TylerIE

Hes finally on the ballot paper at least!

Dublin City Council 30 for, 6 against, 11 abstained.

allydylan

mango salsa wrote: »

Hmmm

David Norris was never getting my 1st preference and I am still undecided about the ballot what way I will vote 2-7. I almost always fill out the whole way down.

1) Higgins: I think he is an incredibly inspiring orator - He is a politician with principles that has stuck to those principles over the years and has never been afraid to make an unpopular decision.

2) Norris: Really admire his work but I have to think long and hard about whether he is deserving of my number 2.

3) Davis: Pleasant, but doesn't know much about the constitution; has too many soft FF links for my liking and while I admire her work in the special olympics movement I'm a bit cynical about it.

4) Gallagher: has a lot of political experience in FF. His enterprise and youth work skills are positive though.

5) Dana: Waaay too Conservative - may give her 5,6 or 7.

6) McGuinness: Waaay too Nationalist and provo supporting - may give him 5,6 or 7.

7) Gay Mitchell: Terrible candidate - may give him 5,6 or 7.

I agree with everything you said

TylerIE wrote: »

Hes finally on the ballot paper at least!

Dublin City Council 30 for, 6 against, 11 abstained.

oh David Norris?

TylerIE

allydylan wrote: »

oh David Norris?

Yes!

That is who this thread [that you started :P] is about :P :P

allydylan

TylerIE wrote: »

Yes!

That is who this thread [that you started :P] is about :P :P

hahaha, i'm a little slow today, since i've the flu so go easy on me :P

WonderWoman!

allydylan wrote: »

hahaha, i'm a little slow today, since i've the flu so go easy on me :P

No excuse . I've the flu too

Shakti

I'll be voting Michael.D number one, Norris second and whatever happens Dana will be last.

Freiheit

Yes but only because he's the least bad of a bad lot. He has a lot to offer and no doubt could make a really good president,but I think interruption is the most rude of traits and having heard him as part of discussion panels,he seems to interrupt an awful lot,unintentionaly terribly rude.:rolleyes: If your reading David let people speak.

I actually voted for dana in 1997 despite being opposed to everything she stood for,because at least she stood for something,unlike the others.

Chuchoter

I don't know if I'll be registered or not in time, but I'll only be putting down Higgins. David Norris is a disgrace.

oisindoyle

Coeurdepirate wrote: »

I'm only 17 so obviously I can't vote, but I have to echo what dreamer said, his comments on older gay men having underage partners was very un-presidential.

Perhaps you need to see what he actually said instead of getting things muddled and wrong

foggy_lad

oisindoyle wrote: »

Perhaps you need to see what he actually said instead of getting things muddled and wrong

What he actually said was a disgrace and more fudge than was ever made by Cadburys. The fact is that the man sees nothing wrong with much older men using their positions of power and money in having infleunce and control over young boys and having sex with them in the guise of providing some kind of lifeskills training.

joan mack

I cannot see any candidate with the skills the previous Presidents had, So although I would hate to not vote, My last vote would be for David Norris not only on gender but he is a pompous man

spurious

I'll be voting Norris.

Aard

Chuchoter wrote: »

I don't know if I'll be registered or not in time, but I'll only be putting down Higgins. David Norris is a disgrace.

I would advise you (and anybody else reading this) to go through the entire 1-7 of candidates. As proven in the Robinson election, the lower down the list votes definitely count too. If you don't have a #2, then somebody else's #2 of Dana could be counted. (I'm going worst-case scenario here!)

So say you do the following order:
#1 Higgins
#2 Davis
#3 Mitchell
...
#7 Dana
it doesn't mean that if Higgins didn't get in you'd be totally cool with Davis becoming president. It just means that you'd prefer Davis over Mitchell. Of course, if you dislike all the candidates equally, then this isn't strictly necessary. The above example means though that Dana wouldn't get a vote until everybody else is eliminated (in which case of course, it's entirely moot).

FurryFace

Definitely voting for him

Thorella

I am giving him my number one, as are my whole family. Really shaping up to be an interesting presidential election. So excited!:)

KnifeWRENCH

Delighted Norris finally got his nod. Between him and Higgins for me.
Then McGuinness > Gallagher > Davis > Dana >>>>>>>>>> Mitchell.

oisindoyle wrote: »

Perhaps you need to see what he actually said instead of getting things muddled and wrong

:rolleyes: How do you know he hasn't read what he said? You can't call his view "muddled and wrong" just because he dares to disagree with your opinion.

TylerIE

Aard wrote: »

I would advise you (and anybody else reading this) to go through the entire 1-7 of candidates. As proven in the Robinson election, the lower down the list votes definitely count too. If you don't have a #2, then somebody else's #2 of Dana could be counted. (I'm going worst-case scenario here!)

So say you do the following order:
#1 Higgins
#2 Davis
#3 Mitchell
...
#7 Dana

No disrespect but I wouldnt put Mitchell third on any "example".

While I havnt decided my top 3, Mitchell and Dana will not get any preference as I dont want them getting any transfer from me. I will use up the remaining 5.

Sean Gallagher and MD Higgins have got a lot of respect from me for asking others to ensure that we had a fair vote. Gallagher also is a young voice, with an entrepreneurial mindset. That mindset is a transferable skill that may be exactly what the country needs right now. Norris also figures for a wide variety of reasons. Had he not been on the ballot paper, I would have been spoiling my vote in putting him on, but my first preference is still up for grabs!

cdsb46

mango salsa wrote: »

Hmmm

David Norris was never getting my 1st preference and I am still undecided about the ballot what way I will vote 2-7. I almost always fill out the whole way down.

1) Higgins: I think he is an incredibly inspiring orator - He is a politician with principles that has stuck to those principles over the years and has never been afraid to make an unpopular decision.

2) Norris: Really admire his work but I have to think long and hard about whether he is deserving of my number 2.

3) Davis: Pleasant, but doesn't know much about the constitution; has too many soft FF links for my liking and while I admire her work in the special olympics movement I'm a bit cynical about it.

4) Gallagher: has a lot of political experience in FF. His enterprise and youth work skills are positive though.

5) Dana: Waaay too Conservative - may give her 5,6 or 7.

6) McGuinness: Waaay too Nationalist and provo supporting - may give him 5,6 or 7.

7) Gay Mitchell: Terrible candidate - may give him 5,6 or 7.

Well i'm afraid you will be spoiling your vote, if don't put a no.1 down then your vote has being spoiled

TylerIE

cdsb46 wrote: »

Well i'm afraid you will be spoiling your vote, if don't put a no.1 down then your vote has being spoiled

Mangos signature suggests he has a number 1:

Supporting Michael D Higgins for President and Patrick Nulty in Dublin West

:P

ninty9er

I think at this stage we can concur that there won't be more than 7 candidates.

I have had the following description put to me:

1. a geriatric who writes bad poetry,
2. an apologist for child abuse,
3. a terrorist,
4. a woman who ran for the Presidency without reading up on the role,
5. a religious fundamentalist,
6. a slightly-less religious-fundamentalist-but-still-pretty-damn conservative boring plank of wood,
7. a closet-FF'er

In order of preference, barring any major revelations over the next month I will vote:

Davis.........................(1)
Gallagher....................(4)
Higgins.......................(2)
McGuinness.................
Mitchell......................(5)
Norris.........................(3)
Scallon.......................(6)

CrystalLettuce

I find it very worrying that after a lot of the issues regarding Norris have been cleared up(comments regarding pedastry etc.), people are still buying and voting on the media line. Very sad. I think it's a case of people liking to think they're being mature by not "automatically" voting for the gay candidate.

CrystalLettuce

foggy_lad wrote: »

What he actually said was a disgrace and more fudge than was ever made by Cadburys. The fact is that the man sees nothing wrong with much older men using their positions of power and money in having infleunce and control over young boys and having sex with them in the guise of providing some kind of lifeskills training.

Except that's not what he said. He even said explicitly on the Late Late that he did not approve of older men having sex with young boys. His views on the matter were closer to the idea of having a "Big brother" in the gay community to educate etc., not engage in any kind of sexual or romantic relationship with. As a young gay man he felt lost in this country and would have liked the idea of meeting someone who has actual life experience in the same predicament.

This actually goes double for transgendered people, when you think about it.

yawha

Aard wrote: »

I would advise you (and anybody else reading this) to go through the entire 1-7 of candidates. As proven in the Robinson election, the lower down the list votes definitely count too. If you don't have a #2, then somebody else's #2 of Dana could be counted. (I'm going worst-case scenario here!)

So say you do the following order:
#1 Higgins
#2 Davis
#3 Mitchell
...
#7 Dana
it doesn't mean that if Higgins didn't get in you'd be totally cool with Davis becoming president. It just means that you'd prefer Davis over Mitchell. Of course, if you dislike all the candidates equally, then this isn't strictly necessary. The above example means though that Dana wouldn't get a vote until everybody else is eliminated (in which case of course, it's entirely moot).

Why would you put down a number 7 at all?

Annasopra

CrystalLettuce wrote: »

I find it very worrying that after a lot of the issues regarding Norris have been cleared up(comments regarding pedastry etc.), people are still buying and voting on the media line. Very sad. I think it's a case of people liking to think they're being mature by not "automatically" voting for the gay candidate.

The problem is that a lot of the issues haven't been cleared up

Annasopra

cdsb46 wrote: »

Well i'm afraid you will be spoiling your vote, if don't put a no.1 down then your vote has being spoiled

No it hasn't; I have scrutinized with returning officers. If there is a 2-7 the returning officer will adjudicate and with agreement of representatives of all candidates (I have done this; representing myself in 2009 and a candidate in 2011) will usually agree that the number 2 will be amended to 1 and the number 3 amended to 2 etc etc etc

oisindoyle

mango salsa wrote: »

The problem is that a lot of the issues haven't been cleared up

Really ? Such as ?......Hes just been on the radio and AGAIN he has said loud and clear he abhours child abuse be it sexual mental or physical.
He also said he made a mistake in writing "the letter",he condemned his former lover for his actions which he said were wrong ..

foggy_lad

oisindoyle wrote: »

Really ? Such as ?......Hes just been on the radio and AGAIN he has said loud and clear he abhours child abuse be it sexual mental or physical.
He also said he made a mistake in writing "the letter",he condemned his former lover for his actions which he said were wrong ..

The main issue is his insistence on staying in/re-entering the race for the park after all that has come to light about his weird and very unusual beliefs and views about taking young men/teens under his wing and how long and how much criticism it took before he switched his attention from whining about some dirty old pedophile convicted of rape to showing a shred of concern for the victim of the rape!

There is also the use of government paper to plead clemency for a convicted rapist in another country bringing shame upon the state and on all of us. Yet again this man thought nothing of this until the public outcry was so great that people were calling for him to be thrown out of the Seanad.

His responses to everything that has emerged has been too little far too late but still this buffoon persists. Does he not get it that nobody apart from perverts would want a man like him as head of the country, his morals are not my morals and his beliefs on how middle aged men should interact with younger men and teenagers have no place in a civilised society. He should pop back to ancient greece and see how long his pontificating would be tolerated.

Annasopra

foggy_lad wrote: »

Does he not get it that nobody apart from perverts would want a man like him as head of the country

this is completely untrue. Lots of his supporters are not perverts. Please stop using such abusive language.

Shakti

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ezra_Nawi

In 1995, Nawi was convicted of statutory rape of a 15 year old Palestinian boy, after their relationship had been reported to Israeli police by the boy's parents in 1992. The legal age for such relationships is 16 in Israeli law. He made two appeals in what was a five year legal battle, and, after plea bargaining before the Jerusalem High Court, was finally sentenced to six months prison in September 1997. According to his close friend Nissim Mossek, Nawi was unaware the boy was underage, believing him to be over 16. He was jailed in November of that year, but released after three months. He has had other convictions, including illegal use of a weapon and posssesion of drugs for private use.

IMO there was a case for clemency to be pleaded for, whoever pleaded it and on whatever notepaper there was still a case.

Freiheit

Yeah I now think he'd make a good President but a lot of Irish people are probably not going to take the time to understand what he actually said and done. Most will decide on the basis of the flames being fanned by the media. A majority of people are not really thinkers.

I still don't like how he constantly interrupts people,he needs to learn to listen a bit more,but he would be a good president. Homophobia is you know still quite strong in certain places so as well as what he brings to the office in terms of ability it would send out a message that being gay is ok,which isn't always socially the case outside the capital.

TylerIE

Forgive me for perhaps dragging this off topic but why not just put in a number 1? Purely out of curiosity!

mango salsa wrote: »

No it hasn't; I have scrutinized with returning officers. If there is a 2-7 the returning officer will adjudicate and with agreement of representatives of all candidates (I have done this; representing myself in 2009 and a candidate in 2011) will usually agree that the number 2 will be amended to 1 and the number 3 amended to 2 etc etc etc

spurious

Freiheit wrote: »

A majority of people are not really thinkers.

Understatement of the year.:D

Freiheit

Oh Spurious I was being euphemistic,my first thought was to be far more explicit.:)

HarryPotter41

Shakti wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ezra_Nawi



IMO there was a case for clemency to be pleaded for, whoever pleaded it and on whatever notepaper there was still a case.

In a radio interview on rte Ezra Nawi was quite clear that he knew exactly what age the boy was, wikipedia does not contain all known knowledge to man.