If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on 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

The Weekend On One With Brendan O'Connor



  • Registered Users Posts: 574 ✭✭✭iffandonlyif

    Twenty minutes in and they’re still talking about Trump and the coming US election. All the panellists talking with extreme confidence about a political system they know only from afar based on BBC News and the odd New York Times article. I used to think knowledge of foreign affairs was an indication of a mature and sophisticated political culture, but I now wonder how it can be good for our politics and culture that we treat US politics as part of our own.

  • Registered Users Posts: 5,333 ✭✭✭Frank Grimes

    The near obsession editorially that RTE Radio One has with American politics is bordering on bizarre at this stage. Granted American buisiness/politics/culture etc. has an influence here but as you say they treat/talk about this stuff as if it is part of our day to day lives.

  • Registered Users Posts: 14,990 ✭✭✭✭elperello

    Do you really think that panel just glean their knowledge of US politics based on the BBC and a few NY Times articles ?

    The fact is that that US politics matters to the whole world.

  • Registered Users Posts: 2,184 ✭✭✭tohaltuwi

    Ballsy jammed the brakes quickly on a monk who tried to explain about women’s’ menopause 🤣

  • Registered Users Posts: 33,613 ✭✭✭✭NIMAN

    Fact is, vast majority of Irish peoples lives will be no different.

    Could anyone tell me how their live was changed for the good under Biden, after the leadership of Trump which obviously ruined their lives?

  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 19,482 ✭✭✭✭Brendan Bendar

    Lad was waffling on Tee, Ballsy was right to hit the brakes.

    where do they get these gloamers from.

  • Registered Users Posts: 2,184 ✭✭✭tohaltuwi

    The biggest waffler I’ve heard in a long long time, I think Ballsy regretted having him on.

  • Registered Users Posts: 19,482 ✭✭✭✭Brendan Bendar

    Probably because all the alternative glumpers were away in the ‘little place’ in Spain Tee.

    It’s the bank holiday Tee, surprised Ballsy was there himself, it’s the ‘practice squad’ to use an NFL description

    who are on RTE for the weekend.

    That’s how it rolls in Montrosia.

  • Registered Users Posts: 574 ✭✭✭iffandonlyif

    Yes, I have no doubt. It’s not a specialist panel. Their understanding of US politics is developed in their free time alongside whatever else interests them. But let’s say they are reading the Atlantic back to front every week, and listening to NPR, and checking in on CNN in the evening, what a depressing waste of valuable time for an Irish person without a vote in the US - taking on political worries that contributes absolutely nothing to your society, and maybe makes it worse.

    The US is, of course, of great significance in international affairs. But the question is, why is being able to talk authoritatively about the electoral college, the likely swing states, the demographic composition of Trump’s support, etc, a good thing for a non-American to develop? It’s fast-food political consumption, treating politics as a form of entertainment.

  • Registered Users Posts: 3,437 ✭✭✭boardise

    Nah , Mary L McDonald and her SF henchmen can get houses built for E300,000 no probs.

  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 2,184 ✭✭✭tohaltuwi

    I imagine a lot who follow American politics with this degree of infotainment at heart have some connection tons there, either close relatives, have worked there or visited there a lot, or work for American companies etc. I suppose I would too if I were in that league, as it is I find it tedious & depressing and it’s very far from being my favourite country to visit.

  • Registered Users Posts: 14,990 ✭✭✭✭elperello

    I'm not sure what you were expecting given the format of the show.

    I can however assure you that Larry Donnelly, Bostonian,lawyer and lecturer, Elaine Loughlin, political correspondent The Examiner and Gerard Howlin, long time involved in politics as an advisor don't rely on the BBC and the NY Times to inform them about US politics.

    I'm not certain about Dr Mary McAuliffe but she is a serious historian and as such not given to speaking without thinking.

    Of course Larry Donnelly is also a US citizen, a registered Democrat and has a vote in the US.

    These are serious people and far removed from politics as fast food or entertainment.

    If you find discussion of US politics distasteful that's your own choice.

  • Registered Users Posts: 574 ✭✭✭iffandonlyif

    ‘These are serious people so obviously they’re very well informed’? That’s the argument you’ve chosen?!

    And obviously I wasn’t including the American in my criticism. Jfc.

  • Registered Users Posts: 14,990 ✭✭✭✭elperello

    Not really but I am saying at least three of those on the panel are well entitled to express an opinion on US politics

    Serious people tend not go on radio shows talking about things they don't understand.

    You did say all the panellists as quoted below so I thought you included Larry.

    "Twenty minutes in and they’re still talking about Trump and the coming US election. All the panellists talking with extreme confidence about a political system they know only from afar based on BBC News and the odd New York Times article"

    Not to worry, it's no big deal, he's not all that special. Everyone in Boston thinks they are an expert on politics, not just the lawyers 🙂

  • Registered Users Posts: 2,343 ✭✭✭kowloonkev

    The reason people prefer to speak on air about foreign politics is because they've no skin in the game and can't do themselves damage. They'll seemingly have a great understanding and empathy towards your average yank, but as soon as they leave Donnybrook they have their heads firmly up their own arses, as seemingly they have not a clue what paddy average is thinking.

  • Registered Users Posts: 7,228 ✭✭✭plodder

    No names. No names! …. Except if they're dead and can't sue.

  • Registered Users Posts: 10,436 ✭✭✭✭thesandeman

    The "no names" panic today was to save himself the bother of having to read out the rest of the twentysomething candidates if one was mentioned.

    I was really hoping someone would mention a name.

  • Registered Users Posts: 7,228 ✭✭✭plodder

    That's funny. If true, I suppose it means they are taking the balance requirement seriously, but that would be plainly ridiculous.

    On the topic of election skullduggery, Brendan was quick enough to shout out the name Pat O'Connor - Pat O'Connor, the oldest and possibly lamest political joke in the book. No fear of being sued there as he is long dead.

  • Registered Users Posts: 2,743 ✭✭✭donaghs

    In fairness, Larry Donnelly (thick Boston accent) is fairly open minded. He did make the point that its wrong to simply dismiss half of America as Trump supporting rednecks and "deplorables", and more effort should be made by the Democrats to try and understand these people (many who used to vote for them). Making the point also that Hillary Clinton lost voters by that sort of elitist dismissive condescension.

    I'm not sure if I'd call Dr Mary McAuliffe "a serious historian". I'm sure she has all her footnotes and bibliography in order, but in her entire career and ouvre has been bsaed around the women's/gender stuff:

    Not much diversity of topics/ideas!

    She's the Director of Gender Studies in UCD (formerly know as "Women's Studies"/WERRC, before the current gender obsession). She seemed to stick closely to the script and gave all the expected answers that someone from her "side" should. No real room for nuance or grey areas.

  • Registered Users Posts: 574 ✭✭✭iffandonlyif

    A radio review in the Independent mentions the panel discussion on Sunday.

    NUIG law lecturer Larry Donnelly said a few things that I found baffling, and that I surmise Larry himself may have found baffling, when it was all over.

    He criticised the defence in Trump’s election interference case, for not objecting when Stormy Daniels went into “lurid detail” – yet my understanding was that Stormy had every right to be lurid, due to Trump’s insistence that his defence team stick with the lie that he never had sex with her at all. Her own credibility now required that she provide some local colour, as it were. Far from being just “lurid detail”, this is what he wanted to hide, this was his motive.

    As it turned out, I now had some skin in this game. An article of mine was raised by Brendan, when Larry was talking about the applicable statute, and how it required “an intent to defraud”.

    It goes on, with the reviewer repeating the argument about a legal technicality that he made in his column.

    The reviewer repeating himself gives me license to do that same: why are we so preoccupied by the details of American politics in a way that we aren’t even about EU politics? And why does an Irish columnist feel qualified to rudely correct an American law academic about an American legal trial?!

  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 7,228 ✭✭✭plodder

    Not sure I'd agree with him on the fraud point. It has a much more specific meaning in law and cheating to win an election wouldn't count imo. Donnelly was by far the only person worth listening to on that panel. It had a real bank holiday vibe to it.

  • Registered Users Posts: 574 ✭✭✭iffandonlyif

    Yeah, it’s one step away from saying there’s a victim in every immoral action, and that’s God.

    In line with my point, it’s the type of superficial, facile argument you only make when you’re outside looking in.

    I agree Donnelly was good but the rest seemed pretty typical to me.

  • Registered Users Posts: 10,953 ✭✭✭✭dulpit

    Bit random that Brendan O'Connor was off today what with it being the day after election. On newstalk Anton Savage's show was extended to run from 9am to 1pm instead.

    And it's not like this election's date wasn't well known, it's a set date...

  • Registered Users Posts: 19,482 ✭✭✭✭Brendan Bendar

    Nothing ‘random’ about anything RTE do Dee.

    Noels rules dude.d

  • Registered Users Posts: 621 ✭✭✭bureau2009

    The Weekend on One - WITHOUT Brendan O'Connor!

  • Registered Users Posts: 2,184 ✭✭✭tohaltuwi

    This interview with comedian John Bishop sounds car crash to me. He’s making it all about complaining about his ex wife and sounds distinctly under the influence 🤔 but I don’t tend to focus too much on his interviews.

  • Registered Users Posts: 2,737 ✭✭✭Brian Scan

  • Registered Users Posts: 10,436 ✭✭✭✭thesandeman

    I thought his ex wife is his current wife? I like his style of comedy I much prefer him to the other Bishop anyway.

  • Registered Users Posts: 68,848 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady

    and sounds distinctly under the influence


    Sounded in top form to me.

  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 14,990 ✭✭✭✭elperello

    High on life.

    A good spin on a motorcycle 🏍️ has that effect 🙂