Presidential Election 2025

All elected reps give their views in the Dáil and outside it. I wouldn't agree with all of them, but they are absolutely within their rights to make them.
You seem to be making this a crime of international proportions just because you don't agree with them and now you are insinuating that there is something nefarious 'between the lines'.

I don't believe that for a second, I may not agree fully with her, but Catherine Connolly is hiding nothing. She is a public rep whose entire motivation for her entire career is to speak for those whose rights are abused. Whether that be human or civil rights.

still insist that it's big bad NATO that actually to blame for all of this Russian aggression

Can you link to Connolly saying NATO is to blame for ALL Russian aggression?

Is it a crime to decide whether to vote for someone based on their public statements?
Nope.
So let's drop the nonsense about a 'crime of international proportions'.
Connolly can make the statements as a TD of course, and nowhere have I said otherwise - only that voters can make up their mind based on the content of them. And the content of them also encompasses what is omitted.

I am pointing out politicians may in their statements create misleading impressions, especially those that are vague \ aspirational and not connected to concrete commitments or actions. Consciously or subconsciously. And that a test of whether the politician's views align with yours is to watch out for what is not said.
Nefarious hardly seems an accurate description of that scenario.

"a public rep whose entire motivation for her entire career is to speak for those whose rights are abused. Whether that be human or civil rights."

That is your opinion only. I note this as you seem to think it is important to point that out in your own replies.
I don't know if that is her motivation. But there is a saying - the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
It is entirely fair comment to point out that outcome is not guaranteed from intentions and can cause the opposite outcome.

Is it possible to put up a list of candidates and rumoured candidates to be updated as needs be?

Questions only Connolly can answer should be addressed to her.

Connolly is on record as saying she has 'a huge problem' with the EU in relation to their measures to increase military aid to Ukraine and boost the military capability of its members.

*Her 'problem' seems to be: she is critical of the fact that none of the Peace Facility' (EPF) funding given by the EU is actually going to help find a peaceful solution.

*Nobody said, Ukraine has no right to defend itself.

*Nowhere have I seen Connolly criticise countries 'for coming to Ukraine's aid'. She may have criticised countries that also aided Ukraine for other reasons though.

* I have also not seen her saying countries should be left defenceless against illegal invasions

It would be so unreliable from the outset as to be not worth bothering.

Things will begin to crystallise in about a month from now. Meanwhile Paddy Power has you covered for a list of randomers.

Btw, there are another two dozen names out to 500/1.

I'll rephrase it, it is unclear from her statements if she thinks Ireland should seek outside aid if attacked.

Ask her. I don't know what her opinion is on it. I don't see her saying anywhere that Ukraine shouldn't seek outside aid.

She outlines no credible position as to how democratic countries such as Lithuania, Estonia could defend themselves or maintain their independence outside of a military pact given they have been subject to Soviet domination and threats from a revanchist Russia.

Again, I am not aware of what she has said on this, if anything.

She has criticised non-EU countries that came to Ukraine's aid,

Where? And was it specifically for giving aid?

and has criticised the EU plan to assist Ukraine.

She has criticised the EU for not using some of the aid to seek peace.

Leaving Europe defenceless against Russian threats won't ensure peace. That's a peaceful solution so that a war doesn't start.

Who has said Europe should be left defenceless?

Similarly, she has not articulated alternative measures that could improve the defences of Ireland or such countries against illegal invasions… or even accepted the need for such measures.

She has praised the Defence Forces here and criticised the lack of funding they receive to eh…defend the country.

Again, 'credibility' is in the eyes and ears of whoever is listening.

What she does with her position is to implore those with the 'power' here to do things differently, which is all she can do as an independent.
As she has been vilified for being a Russian stooge/sympathiser without any evidence of that, she is definitely effective. The knives are out in the consensus and lines will be read between whether there is anything there or not.

I agree with you that NATO and the West should have responded more strongly and aggressively to Russia's annexation of Crimea in 2014, and that a failure to do so then had consequences.

What puzzles me is that you, like Catherine Connolly, then go on to support a weaker approach to the subsequent Russian invasion of the rest of Ukraine.

You cannot criticise NATO for being too weak in 2014, and ask them to be weaker again in 2025.

That's the point - she hasn't said anything concrete or realistic. S

What's Mairead McGuinness's view on this, or Michael Flatley's?

I don't know, and I am not going to read between the lines either.

She seems to imagine wars can be stopped by sheer force of will of people

I don't agree. She seems to think wars can be stopped by combatants doing what one of the present combatants (the invaded) one wants to do and the US wants them both to do - call a ceasefire and enter negotiations. Some might say, Catherine Connolly was way ahead of the field on that.

The military-industrial complex that Europe is in the middle of, with a European Defence Fund, a European Defence Agency and Partnership for Peace, which is a travesty of the English language because it is a partnership for war.

I never said it was her only criticism/problem. I have absolutely no problem proceeding with caution on what is motivating the formation of the above. Connolly doesn't trust the motivations.
I. and I am sure, other readers of this thread and in the electorate are decidedly not ok with increasing military spending and capability. We have seen wars orchestrated before with weapons of mass destruction scaremongering. Russia can be contained with what is already in place if the will is there and any aggression is nipped in the bud and they are actually isolated for it.
Read a few of the NATO threads and the war in Ukraine ones. The scaremongering a few years ago was ripe stuff.

Did Michael Flatley or Mairead McGuinness make speeches criticising the EU defence fund?
Flatley is just flying a kite.
McGuinness has given no public indication criticising the EU plan. Connolly has.
This isn't even good whataboutery.

Yeah and how is that US plea working? Not at all.
And that US plea is backed, supposedly, by a threat for further sanctions on Russia and assistance for Ukraine should Russia not come to the negotiating table.
Connolly and those making similar arguments to her offer no incentive for Russia to come to the negotiating table, just empty words.

In an earlier post you said:
"Her 'problem' seems to be: she is critical of the fact that none of the Peace Facility' (EPF) funding given by the EU is actually going to help find a peaceful solution."

Now you are saying:
"I never said it was her only criticism/problem…"

I have put her words up on the thread. Readers can judge for themselves how well her comments align with their views and whether they think it is reasonable for Europe to increase defence spending at this time.

That might be your view but I see absolutely nothing to suggest Connolly shares it eg nipping aggression in the bud, isolating Russia.

Without that her words are empty.

Did Michael Flatley or Mairead McGuinness make speeches criticising the EU defence fund?

Why would they need to criticise the EU to have a view on the defence of Lithuania Estonia etc?

You are setting up ridiculous points of attack here, it speaks volumes.

Yeah and how is that US plea working? Not at all.

Well he has just upped the ante, so let's see.
The point is, a ceasefire is seen as something worthwhile and worth getting now.

And that US plea is backed, supposedly, by a threat for further sanctions on Russia and assistance for Ukraine should Russia not come to the negotiating table.

Connolly and those making similar arguments to her offer no incentive for Russia to come to the negotiating table, just empty words.

Connolly has no power to threaten sanctions. She was calling on those in power to pressure for a ceasefire and negotiation

In an earlier post you said:
"Her 'problem' seems to be: she is critical of the fact that none of the Peace Facility' (EPF) funding given by the EU is actually going to help find a peaceful solution."

Now you are saying:
"I never said it was her only criticism/problem…"

Where are you seeing me writing 'this is the only problem she has'?

The Irish people will judge her suitability, correct. Never said anything different. All I said was of those nominated, she is my choice. You only have one as well.