Presidential Election 2025

That is so vague a statement as to be meaningless. Blame is shared. Equally?
How much 'blame' attaches to Ukraine versus Russia then, and where does she delineate this?
How much 'blame' attached to Poland versus Nazi Germany?
It's just an excuse for the typical both sides false equivalences we see from the likes of Daly.
That is not speaking truth.

Does she support Ukraine's right to resist the Russian invasion?
She may think the Russian invasion is 'illegal' - where does should validate Ukraine's legal right to resist that invasion?
Where does she without reservation condemn Russia? Without undermining it with the usual guff?
Can you find me that quote?
Or do we just get the usual weasel words, condemning 'war' in the abstract without clearly assigning the culpability where it lies.

In the absence of that quote, based on the quotes I've seen, and her full support for Daly, is in the same camp. The strongest words of criticism will be reserved for the West \ NATO not the actual perpetrators of the war crimes ie Russia.

She gives speeches and supports policies the result of which would leave Ireland and Europe with weak military capability.

If Ireland was invaded, and our army fought back instead of surrendering, would blame attach to us for fighting back with that army?

When she talks of stopping wars, she seems to mean surrender to aggression. She wants an Ireland and Europe incapable of defending itself against aggression.

Nothing is likely to engender more aggression than to be defenceless against threats.

Article 13.4 of the Constitution:

"4 The supreme command of the Defence Forces is hereby vested in the President."

We cannot have as President someone who believes in the abolition of the Defence Forces. She is manifestly unsuitable for the role.

I have major issue with the 'arms industry' and what they do. No surprise that the biggest ones are in the aggressive players in world conflicts/wars.

I also think the leaders of the West have a share of the blame in conflicts/wars too.

I think distinguishing an 'army' from a 'defence force' to make a point about being part of a military alliance, isn't a huge crime even if it is easy fodder for her critics.

You never said it wasn't shared equally. Your sentence as worded was meaningless nonsense. It's up there with "two sides to every story". So my point stands.

I did not ignore NATO's role, I fully justified it with reference to the NATO Russia Founding Act and the Budapest Agreement. There was no 'encroachment', NATO and Ukraine were conducting themselves fully within the bounds of those agreements signed with Russia.

I have no idea what point you think you are trying to make about 'glad handing'.

If the likes of Poland the Baltic States hadn't joined NATO, it is clear they would have undergone the same process of attempted Russian domination through corruption, bribery, threats, 'little green men' covert invasions and open aggression if it came to that. And they are fellow EU member states with Ireland, which is why European re-armament is important not just for aiding Ukraine.

I don't see any evidence that Connolly unequivocally blames Russia for the invasion.

The claim under discussion was whether Connolly was out of step with the electorate.

She tries to hide it with weasel words as Daly did, condemning 'invasion' and 'war' in the abstract. People hear that and think she is unequivocally blaming Russia and on board with support Ukraine. But in reality she is not.

And given Daly and Wallace lost their seat and hold similar position - I would argue she is out of step with the Irish electorate which is why it is important to point out her equivocations.

She doesn't have the 'right' to automatically stand for election as President (and Commander in Chief) if she has made statements which cast doubt on her ability to carry out that role as per the Constitution. That applies not just to her but others putting themselves forward. The Oireachtas and county councils are fully entitled in that situation to refuse to endorse a candidate.

She doesn't have the 'right' to equivocate between the victims of invasion and the aggressors and not be called out on it.

Her voice is being heard, and people who don't like what they are hearing are entitled to call out her equivocations.

And in the context of a Presidential election, and threats by Russia to EU member states, her public opposition to European re-armament, this is an election issue. If elected, she would be representing Ireland to the rest of the EU and the world.

She does have the right.

Your opinion of her carries zero weight past your vote. You may need to address your authoritarianism btw, sounds a bit dictatory,

Somebody has just said, she has no right to stand because essentially their argument is different to hers. That is exclusionary talk.

Such a childish, naieve outlook on politics. Unfortunately there are countries in the world like Russia, China, Iran, North Korea who are more aggressive and less democratic than would be wished for.

I suppose if you lived in the 1930s you, as a SF supporter, would have had an issue with the leaders of the West like UK and USA being armed too, and you still never condemned the extremist Republican Sean Russell going to Germany to attempt to collaborate with them during WW2, when millions were being rounded up and shoved in to gas chambers. You are a great one to talk about "distinguishing an 'army' from a defence force" when you think unelected terrorists, with no mandate from a government anywhere, could call themselves an army!

So you are stepping away from this then? *bolding mine

She doesn't have the 'right' to automatically stand for election as President (and Commander in Chief) if she has made statements which cast doubt on her ability to carry out that role as per the Constitution.

Connolly has already been nominated. There are no 'if's'.

She has the right to stand.

Nor did I.

So no problem there then.

Simply put, she has called out Putin, called out it's invasion as illegal and has said that we should call out Russia and also call out countries in the west like the US and Britain for they have done and not done.

The aggressor was rewarded after first invading in 2014 by those now keen to disassociate themselves.

There is a long line of people and countries to blame for that rewarding/blind eye/self interest before Catherine Connolly hoves into view to be honest.

Connolly's motivations for speaking out have always been clear to me, human rights and the suffering caused by conflict/war.

And Hitler was rewarded for aggression in 1938, a debatable decision at the time but it would have been an even bigger mistake to continue down the same path because of misguided past decisions.

Catherine Connolly is the one standing for election as President, who will represent us abroad, who is making public comments about the EU and Irish attempts to re-arm and protect their citizens, making public comments about a major issue i.e. the invasion of Ukraine by Russia. She has hoved herself into view.

And the consequences of her 'worldview' for want of a better word, in my opinion, will be more suffering, more conflict, more war, more human rights abuses. And I am using the platform of this thread to point that out to potential voters and to alert them of the need to 'read between the lines' of her speeches. At first glance it appears to be in synch with the majority of the Irish electorate, but a closer reading of her statements is warranted.
I say this based on the assumption majority of Irish people support initiatives from the EU and friendly powers to assist Ukraine's defence against Russian invasion, even if they have reservations about Ireland providing direct military aid.