Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.

Presidential Election 2025

1280281283285286502

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,195 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    No contradictions at all. I have said clearly that I vote Green, that does not make me in agreement with everything the party says or does, that does not make me an activist. Neither does it make me a blind follower the way I see others on here blindly following Sinn Fein for example.

    Quite simply, as I have explained before, the biggest crisis is climate change, and none of the other parties take it seriously enough. However, voting Green in a general election does not mean I have to follow their lead in a Presidential election.

    At the moment I am voting Gavin, but that is open to change, I could vote Humphreys, but I believe that it is time we recognised the type of public service that Gavin has given this country, something which operates below the radar.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,195 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Except that her answer didn't go without saying. She wants Ukraine to roll over for Russia which is, to use your words, bleedin obvious from everything she has said to date.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,195 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    There should be a misogyny equivalent of Godwin's Law for posters like yourself and others who falsely bring misogyny accusations into a debate.

    Being a woman doesn't prevent Connolly from being an idiot.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,985 ✭✭✭Caquas


    At last, the campaign is officially under way but those who were excluded are inspiring more interest than the actual candidates. FG will regret not fixing a nomination for Maria Steen so that she could increase middle-class turnout and provide enough transfers to keep Heather ahead of Jim Gavin (her real opponent).

    We are left with a choice of three second-tier, accidental candidates:

    FG lost their preferred candidate and had to bring back a woman who retired on the eve of the last election because she no longer had the energy for public life.

    FF nominated someone whose essential qualification is that he was never associated with their party. Nor was he ever elected to public office.

    All the Opposition parties eventually rallied around a far-Left Independent who previously showed no regard for any of them. SF was dominating the polls two years ago and even this year they aspired to leading the Opposition - now they are reduced to the role of hangers-on in the last national election for years to come and for the Office which they really value for its prominent role in the peace process.

    The result is anyone's guess but turnout will be well under 50%, a sad reflection on our democracy which lessen the next President's popular mandate. I take no notice of the previous polls because "don't know" was the only sensible answer. But if Catherine stops sabotaging herself and SF really weighs in, she should top the poll as the sole Opposition candidate while Heather and Jim will split the Government vote. The general assumption is that, even if Catherine tops the poll, Heather and Jim will transfer strongly enough between each other to take one of them past Catherine on the second count.

    The candidates now have four weeks to convince us that they have Presidential qualities not hitherto obvious to the Irish people. The winner will get the nicest job in Irish politics, the losers will fade into irrelevance while their parties will face serious post-mortems on a single question - "How the F$@K did we lose to that useless non-entity!!??"

    Post edited by Caquas on


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,195 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    We have few choices to defend this country:

    (1) Build defence forces capable of defending this country as a neutral state without needing NATO, this will cost far far more than being in NATO. It is the reason countries like Sweden have joined NATO.

    (2) Line up with our EU colleagues to build a common European defence force.

    (3) Join NATO

    Of course we could default back to the current position and be a vassal State for the UK, relying on them for our defence.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,451 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    Coming from the lad complaining about her looks and her voice…



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 78,564 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Nor does being a member of the Army.

    *Only one set of posters here thought it appropriate to attack a woman's appearance. There's a name for men who do that.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,195 ✭✭✭✭blanch152




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,963 ✭✭✭Charles Babbage


    That's fair comment, she probably has never said that she actually supports the invasion. She has been associated with sentiments that Russia policy generally is somehow justified by something NATO did, she has criticised European countries for helping Ukraine defence and when asked this week she refused to clearly state that she thought that Russia should withdraw.

    She has created a moral confusion that Ukraine using weapons to defend itself is somehow on a par with the Russian attack. There is no moral equivalence between the two parties in this war and it is entirely wrong to vote for a candidate who implies otherwise.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 78,564 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Criticising a woman because her appearance does not meet your (a man) standards is textbook misogny, no matter how you try to hide it.

    Had you withdrawn it when first called out on it, it wouldn't be an issue. But it is.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,195 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    That isn't what I did. I said that Connolly did not look and sound like a President compared to say Robinson or McAleese. There is nothing misogynist about that.

    Blanch's Law: Where a poster introduces accusations of misogyny to distract from their feeble argument.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 78,564 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Connolly did not look 

    Her 'look' does not meet your (a man) standards.
    Textbook stuff.

    Keep digging, I don't think you should be allowed forget this. It should be withdrawn and apologised for.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,195 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Mick Wallace does not look and sound like a President either, am I misandrist now as well?

    I expect certain sartorial standards from a President, an element of charisma and presence, Connolly does not have those. Mary Robinson and Mary McAleese did. Maria Steen does, which would have made her a dangerous candidate from that point of view. There is nothing at all misogynist in pointing this out.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 2,467 ✭✭✭Cyclingtourist




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,451 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,451 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    So she's not posh enough or wealthy enough for you? Maybe if we give Connolly a €30k handbag, she might be good enough for you?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 78,564 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    I expect certain sartorial standards 

    Again, a male stating that a woman's decision about how she appears does not meet HIS standards is classic misogyny.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 2,467 ✭✭✭Cyclingtourist


    Well then how far to the right is the Irish Times, IYO of course?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,451 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    The Irish Times is fairly right wing economically, always looking after the interests of capital. It used to be fairly liberal socially, but even that has been drifting rightward in recent years.

    The Toryeograph is what it is.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,497 ✭✭✭ilkhanid


    The Irish Times is 'right'? That will come as a surprise to many people, not least the columnists in the IT….especially those sometimes derided as being 'right-on' leftists.

    Post edited by ilkhanid on


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,497 ✭✭✭ilkhanid


    Oh, for pete's sake, everybody knows it's a metaphorical destruction (and a well-deserved one). You think some snowflakes will start clutching their pearls at a fantasy of JG going full Conor McGregor on CC? Get up the yard!



  • Moderators, Politics Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 44,276 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    Mod: stay on topic! Several below standard posts deleted and several warnings issued!

    Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/ .



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 59,647 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    Steen I thought got this one spot on: the left don’t love the poor, they just hate the rich…#hermes



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,880 ✭✭✭✭dulpit


    Absolute rubbish. She was being called out for talking about what the elites were doing to her while carrying a bag worth tens of thousands. I was listening to Anton savage show earlier and it was suggested that the bag was a deliberate move, I call absolute nonsense on that.

    She can carry whatever bag she wants, but to suggest her getting push back about it is a sign of jealousy and hating the rich is not true. The commentary i saw here and online was about her elites comment.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,604 ✭✭✭✭Water John


    For an intelligent woman, the Hermes bag was stupid. Lack of awareness, good old fashioned cop on.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,832 ✭✭✭liamtech


    Clearly she needed to explain the bag, after the fact. Otherwise it made a mockery of her campaign, of being 'insurgent against the establishment'.

    She made a mistake, so just like the campaign, she had to reframe it to appear deliberate. I didnt buy it, and honestly, i cannot understand how anyone did. I saw some of her 'maverick supporters' backing it up in posts on twitter - but aside from that its been a collective grown.

    Sic semper tyrannis - thus always to Tyrants



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,794 ✭✭✭Bishop of hope


    So far all I can get from that is that you wouldn t get a hard on for CC or MW, but you might for MR, MMA and MS. How did You feel about Higgins?

    She looks like a lot of Irish grannies really, no pretence in her. She seems a very dedicated lady even in not agreeing with her. Certainly not afraid to say what she wants. Doesn't make her look unpresedential.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 39,657 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    Janey mac that article is some parochial load of cobblers.

    I'm partial to your abracadabra,

    I'm raptured by the joy of it all.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 59,647 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    I wonder would folks have jumped on the bag as much and as quickly had it been a north inner city woman with some money behind her.

    Steen, a very well educated woman, with degrees, and money earned , from a well to do background. This is what bugs people, and brings out the begrudgers much more than an expensive bag!



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,451 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    Do you think it might have had something to do with her lecturing others on being out of touch with the grassroots?



Advertisement