Presidential Election 2025

Yes, that section happens to be a very large and diverse one.

Most secret German rearmament and training happened in Russia. They were allies!

Only up to a point and it was in secret. I.E. those elites in America helping didn't fecking know.

And she said 'SOME' of what is happening is comparable to the 30's.

The build up of the military complex in Europe.

That is something a pacifist would be concerned about.

It will indeed be up to the Palestinians to choose their leaders (it will be interesting to see if they decide to try elections this time around). However, if they choose war criminals as their leaders we would be entitled (and possibly morally obligated) to boycott their state in the same way as we're asked to boycott Israel.

In fairness, and as Connolly pointed out, Hamas have won every election in the last 20 years (🙂). But they did not have the "overwhelming support" she claims they got in 2006. They got 45% of the vote.

Matt Carthy is even more disingenuous: "it is a statement of fact to say that whether we like it or not, Hamas are elected by the people of Gaza," 

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cq65z1lzz71o

It might seem an obvious choice. Many people agree with many of her opinions, and her stance on true social justice issues is admirable. If we left all of her commentary on Palestine, the US, NATO, Germany aside, i would say that i find her compelling. Societal issues in Ireland are important, and whats more, these issues can be solved.

Higgins passed serious tests with Flying Colours

MD Higgins made a fantastic president. From my point of view it was a bonus to say that I agree with his position on many issues. However, what truly made him a great President, was the fact that he fullfilled the role perfectly. He did not create any constitutional issues, or embarass the country internationally. Attempts were made by several Israeli ministers to drag him into the muck on issues surrounding Holocaust Memorial Day, and his views on Palestine - and he defended his decisions but never embarassed himself, or the country, by getting into any back and forth public arguments. Higgins states his views, with conviction, but always remains aware of his unique position. It was this behavior that arguably made right wing Israeli commentators and policy makers, look poor by comparison. (happy to provide links but there are a great many). These were tricky issues, and i wondered would he be dragged into the dirt, at least on Israel/Gaza.

Putting it simply, he was tested, as a public person, a politician, and a president; and everytime, he passed with honors.

You have to ask yourself whether Catherine Connolly would pass these tests?

We cannot know the future, but based on her actions and conduct so far in this campaign, the answer is an emphatic NO. Now at some point in the debate, she will be asked how she would behave if criticized domestically, or internationally. If she is called 'Antisemetic'? If she is dragged into the weeds on the issue of whether Europe is correct to defend Ukraine?

She will also be asked, or should be, how she would respond when required to sign into law, something she totally disagrees with. What if we had a referendum on Irish Neutrality, and the electorate democratically decided that the best course was to join NATO? What if, as outlandish as it sounds, referendums rolling back things like marriage equality, or access to abortion services, passed. And she had the task to sign these things into law?

She will be asked how, as president, she would handle these tests. And she can course correct in this campaign, and improve her chances here, because there is only one correct answer to these questions.

She must state clearly, that she would prioritize the role of President of Ireland, above all personal opinions and beliefs. She would sign what she is constitutionally obliged to sign. She does have the power to refer bills to the Supreme court, but she would exercise these powers wisely, considering the ramifications of doing so. In terms of public attacks on her character and her views, she would conduct herself in a manner befitting the role of President. She could acknowledge at this point, the painful nature of these decisions, but clearly state, that she would refrain from allowing the highest office in the counrty, be dragged into dirt.

I dont know if CC is capable of doing the job. Her outlandish and contraversial statements leave that in doubt. Even if i agreed with everything she has said; It would still be unclear whether she is a wise choice for president. Its a role that should be incompatible with controversy. And therefore, a contraversial candidate is never the best choice moving forward. But i will wait and see how she answers the above questions, if and when asked.

Its a point of detour, but i remember during one of the Presidential debates with Dana, she was asked how she would react RE having to sign into law, legislation on abortion rights (this was a long time before the repeal the 8th Ref) - and she hesitated, and began referring to her sincerely held christian beliefs.

One political commentator at the time, went on to claim that this was the moment when it ended for Dana. Not that she had a huge chance of success mind you. But once she hesitated on this, and indicated that she would have a real issue signing something she disagreed with, she effectively ruled herself out as a credible candidate.

We will just have to wait and see how each of the three candidates fare in the debates.

She has a differing view to yours.

War and conflict has always been good for business. It is a 'part' of the reason we continue to have wars. And that is all she is saying here.

For me, all 3 candidates would pass with flying colours, they would all make exceptional presidents. If the FF or FG candidate was the only one in the race I wouldn't have an issue. Furthermore if Connolly wasn't in the race, say for example there was only govt candidates Vs Maria Steen, I'd be only too happy to give my vote to HH or JG because they would align closer to my views than Steen, despite not liking either party at all

Lads, her Hamas and Russia condemnations are fake and insincere. Always a “but” immediately added when sniping at Israel and America and Western countries/NATO

A vote for Connolly would be no different than wanting Mick bleedin’ Wallace in the Aras!!

It'll be interesting to hear ol jimbo tackle these issues during the debates and how the FFG supporters react on here and elsewhere.

Whatever Connolly's issues have or haven't been in her answers, ol Jim has been shocking in interviews so far and the cuddly dog videos on social media and stuff not really cutting it for a presidential candidate to be fair.

"Heather" no doubt will have the FFG script learnt off to a tee.

Well we can agree on Steen certainly. However I honestly cannot see how you believe that CC, thus far, would pass with flying colours.

She thinks that the irish people, in chosing who to vote for in the presidential election, need to know that

• In her opinion, America is an imperial power comparable to Russia
• Hamas should have a role in the future of Palestine
• German Re-armament is something we should be very worried about, considering the 1930s

We are less than 3 days into the campaign proper. And the above are the serious talking points. Whatsmore, she knew when she expressed these views, that they would be the talking points. She has been a politician for years, she absolutely HAD to expect that she was setting a fire, that would burn for while, and be spoken about by all. She hasnt brought up NATO yet, but honestly it is coming, we can all see it down the track.

Like i said in my previous longwinded post (apologies)- she can course-correct, and state how she would behave if in office. But if her behavior on the campaign is anything to go on; if that is all we have to judge her on, then she is less credible than the other two.

What people dont seem to get, IMHO, is that it really doesnt matter if you agree with her. As president, her role is very limited, and she must reflect the counrty in a favourable light. She must fullfill her constitutional obligations, to the letter of the law, and she must avoid controversy. You could agree with everything she says, while acknowledging that she lacks credibility by continually raising contentious topics. The debate on monday will be interesting, but I will await the question to be asked - how will she behave if something comes up during her presidency, that she has strong opinions on. I gave examples in my previous post, so wont ramble on again.

I would be fairly certain that whoever is elected to the presidency of Ireland is of little to no concern of any other members of the EU.