Friday's rant

for general chat about stuff

Moderator: moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
the spoofer
Shane Horgan
Posts: 4211
Joined: February 17th, 2006, 5:35 pm
Location: Leinster West

Re: Friday's rant

Post by the spoofer »

Just had a look at BNhE and it appears that those convicted of offences can become President. That's an Article I'd vote to change.
User avatar
ronk
Jamie Heaslip
Posts: 15570
Joined: April 9th, 2009, 12:42 am

Re: Friday's rant

Post by ronk »

the spoofer wrote: December 7th, 2023, 9:30 am Just had a look at BNhE and it appears that those convicted of offences can become President. That's an Article I'd vote to change.
Is that one of those WTAF eTLAs?
User avatar
johng
Gordon D'Arcy
Posts: 18844
Joined: March 23rd, 2009, 10:37 pm
Location: Behind You!!

Re: Friday's rant

Post by johng »

Bachelor of Nutrition and Home Economics
User avatar
ronk
Jamie Heaslip
Posts: 15570
Joined: April 9th, 2009, 12:42 am

Re: Friday's rant

Post by ronk »

johng wrote: December 7th, 2023, 10:06 am Bachelor of Nutrition and Home Economics
Ah FFS.
User avatar
Laighin Break
Mullet
Posts: 1798
Joined: May 3rd, 2012, 9:35 am
Location: Scandinavia

Re: Friday's rant

Post by Laighin Break »

Bunreacht na hÉireann I guess
User avatar
ronk
Jamie Heaslip
Posts: 15570
Joined: April 9th, 2009, 12:42 am

Re: Friday's rant

Post by ronk »

Laighin Break wrote: December 7th, 2023, 11:12 am Bunreacht na hÉireann I guess
Why use a confusing acronym our of any context to describe the first time you've read a document. Absolutely rant worthy.

Do they know nothing of the history of the state. 2 of the first presidents were 1916 revolutionaries arrested at the time. The 3rds father was executed by the Free State during the war. If that was too long ago there's still the hunger strikers.

If we vote in someone with a conviction then that's what we chose to do. American history is different and they do it differently for different reasons.
User avatar
johng
Gordon D'Arcy
Posts: 18844
Joined: March 23rd, 2009, 10:37 pm
Location: Behind You!!

Re: Friday's rant

Post by johng »

I just assumed he was talking about Trump. :lol:
User avatar
Oldschoolsocks
Shane Horgan
Posts: 4860
Joined: January 4th, 2015, 10:36 am
Location: Stepping out of the Supernova

Re: Friday's rant

Post by Oldschoolsocks »

ronk wrote: December 7th, 2023, 11:34 am
Laighin Break wrote: December 7th, 2023, 11:12 am Bunreacht na hÉireann I guess
Why use a confusing acronym our of any context to describe the first time you've read a document. Absolutely rant worthy.

Do they know nothing of the history of the state. 2 of the first presidents were 1916 revolutionaries arrested at the time. The 3rds father was executed by the Free State during the war. If that was too long ago there's still the hunger strikers.

If we vote in someone with a conviction then that's what we chose to do. American history is different and they do it differently for different reasons.
Slow day?
User avatar
ronk
Jamie Heaslip
Posts: 15570
Joined: April 9th, 2009, 12:42 am

Re: Friday's rant

Post by ronk »

No, just 2 pet hates. Obtuse use of acronyms. It's rude to make people ask or exclude themselves from a discussion.

I'm also not a big fan of people complaining about the constitution when they don't even understand it.

I'm not a huge fan of the idea of a criminal as head of state but I also recognise that we've had a complicated history and I wouldn't want to exclude people who've turned from violence from participating in the political process. It would be undemocratic even at this stage to do so.

The constitution is the sort of thing we should reflect on before changing.
FLIP
Seán Cronin
Posts: 3074
Joined: May 22nd, 2009, 1:00 am

Re: Friday's rant

Post by FLIP »

There's certainly merit in the idea that a past conviction from an occupying power shouldn't prevent one from running for office. But having a conviction from the current legitimate government surely is different.
Anyone But New Zealand
User avatar
Oldschoolsocks
Shane Horgan
Posts: 4860
Joined: January 4th, 2015, 10:36 am
Location: Stepping out of the Supernova

Re: Friday's rant

Post by Oldschoolsocks »

ronk wrote: December 7th, 2023, 12:03 pm No, just 2 pet hates. Obtuse use of acronyms. It's rude to make people ask or exclude themselves from a discussion.

I'm also not a big fan of people complaining about the constitution when they don't even understand it.

I'm not a huge fan of the idea of a criminal as head of state but I also recognise that we've had a complicated history and I wouldn't want to exclude people who've turned from violence from participating in the political process. It would be undemocratic even at this stage to do so.

The constitution is the sort of thing we should reflect on before changing.
Oh, you’re being serious - sorry.

I got it from the context (it’s probably the first place I’d check on the rules for election to high office?) and it’s pretty standard to use acronyms/shortcuts when posting from a phone. But I suppose I can see why you might be a bit annoyed by it.

In being ineligible for office due to previous conviction, I wouldn’t be agreeing with that at all. People change…
User avatar
the spoofer
Shane Horgan
Posts: 4211
Joined: February 17th, 2006, 5:35 pm
Location: Leinster West

Re: Friday's rant

Post by the spoofer »

ronk wrote: December 7th, 2023, 11:34 am
Laighin Break wrote: December 7th, 2023, 11:12 am Bunreacht na hÉireann I guess
Why use a confusing acronym our of any context to describe the first time you've read a document. Absolutely rant worthy.

Do they know nothing of the history of the state. 2 of the first presidents were 1916 revolutionaries arrested at the time. The 3rds father was executed by the Free State during the war. If that was too long ago there's still the hunger strikers.

If we vote in someone with a conviction then that's what we chose to do. American history is different and they do it differently for different reasons.
The hunger strikers were terrorists. A criminal conviction should rule you out of holding the highest office in the land in my opinion. It would be worth testing the generally held view in a referendum.
User avatar
ronk
Jamie Heaslip
Posts: 15570
Joined: April 9th, 2009, 12:42 am

Re: Friday's rant

Post by ronk »

The median of the top 10%

https://www.thejournal.ie/top-earners-c ... 3-Dec2023/

What a jibberish number. It's not exactly relatable. It's taking the median of a decile.

Percentiles are easier to relate to, to compare and to calculate.

People are bad enough with stats, why make it harder.
User avatar
fourthirtythree
Leo Cullen
Posts: 10597
Joined: April 12th, 2008, 11:33 pm
Location: Eight miles high

Re: Friday's rant

Post by fourthirtythree »

the spoofer wrote: December 7th, 2023, 3:07 pm
ronk wrote: December 7th, 2023, 11:34 am
Laighin Break wrote: December 7th, 2023, 11:12 am Bunreacht na hÉireann I guess
Why use a confusing acronym our of any context to describe the first time you've read a document. Absolutely rant worthy.

Do they know nothing of the history of the state. 2 of the first presidents were 1916 revolutionaries arrested at the time. The 3rds father was executed by the Free State during the war. If that was too long ago there's still the hunger strikers.

If we vote in someone with a conviction then that's what we chose to do. American history is different and they do it differently for different reasons.
The hunger strikers were terrorists. A criminal conviction should rule you out of holding the highest office in the land in my opinion. It would be worth testing the generally held view in a referendum.
That’s not what referendums are intended to do. They are to enact a proposed change which you have positive reasons to make and which you believe you can persuade the population to ageee with or they already do.

Not allowing people who have served time for convictions to hold office is anti-democratic and against the rule of law.
User avatar
offshorerules
Seán Cronin
Posts: 3423
Joined: October 19th, 2012, 1:51 pm
Location: The Beverly Hills of South County Dublin

Re: Friday's rant

Post by offshorerules »

I guess it should be determined by the crime. For example someone convicted of killing a member of an Gardai, should they be allowed to be president of the country. I don't think so.
"POC will not be going to Toulon" - All Blacks nil » May 27th, 2015, 12:18 am
User avatar
the spoofer
Shane Horgan
Posts: 4211
Joined: February 17th, 2006, 5:35 pm
Location: Leinster West

Re: Friday's rant

Post by the spoofer »

offshorerules wrote: December 13th, 2023, 7:39 am I guess it should be determined by the crime. For example someone convicted of killing a member of an Gardai, should they be allowed to be president of the country. I don't think so.
Anyone convicted of murder or attempted murder should not be allowed represent us let alone hold the highest office.
User avatar
johng
Gordon D'Arcy
Posts: 18844
Joined: March 23rd, 2009, 10:37 pm
Location: Behind You!!

Re: Friday's rant

Post by johng »

the spoofer wrote: December 13th, 2023, 9:08 am
offshorerules wrote: December 13th, 2023, 7:39 am I guess it should be determined by the crime. For example someone convicted of killing a member of an Gardai, should they be allowed to be president of the country. I don't think so.
Anyone convicted of murder or attempted murder should not be allowed represent us let alone hold the highest office.
Even if you're Mick Collins?
User avatar
the spoofer
Shane Horgan
Posts: 4211
Joined: February 17th, 2006, 5:35 pm
Location: Leinster West

Re: Friday's rant

Post by the spoofer »

johng wrote: December 13th, 2023, 9:48 am
the spoofer wrote: December 13th, 2023, 9:08 am
offshorerules wrote: December 13th, 2023, 7:39 am I guess it should be determined by the crime. For example someone convicted of killing a member of an Gardai, should they be allowed to be president of the country. I don't think so.
Anyone convicted of murder or attempted murder should not be allowed represent us let alone hold the highest office.
Even if you're Mick Collins?
It depends whether you recognise the Irish Government, Army and State as the legitimate bodies in this country. I do. Therefore, if you are convicted of murder by our state then you should not hold office. I know lots of Shinners still don't recognise he legitimacy of the state but that's for them.
User avatar
offshorerules
Seán Cronin
Posts: 3423
Joined: October 19th, 2012, 1:51 pm
Location: The Beverly Hills of South County Dublin

Re: Friday's rant

Post by offshorerules »

johng wrote: December 13th, 2023, 9:48 am
the spoofer wrote: December 13th, 2023, 9:08 am
offshorerules wrote: December 13th, 2023, 7:39 am I guess it should be determined by the crime. For example someone convicted of killing a member of an Gardai, should they be allowed to be president of the country. I don't think so.
Anyone convicted of murder or attempted murder should not be allowed represent us let alone hold the highest office.
Even if you're Mick Collins?
Yes if you kill a Guard in the line of duty while at the same time not recognising the legal sovereignty of the Garda in the first place.
"POC will not be going to Toulon" - All Blacks nil » May 27th, 2015, 12:18 am
User avatar
Oldschoolsocks
Shane Horgan
Posts: 4860
Joined: January 4th, 2015, 10:36 am
Location: Stepping out of the Supernova

Re: Friday's rant

Post by Oldschoolsocks »

johng wrote: December 13th, 2023, 9:48 am
the spoofer wrote: December 13th, 2023, 9:08 am
offshorerules wrote: December 13th, 2023, 7:39 am I guess it should be determined by the crime. For example someone convicted of killing a member of an Gardai, should they be allowed to be president of the country. I don't think so.
Anyone convicted of murder or attempted murder should not be allowed represent us let alone hold the highest office.
Even if you're Mick Collins?
Having a functioning heartbeat is a prerequisite, no?
Post Reply