Presidential Election.

Noticed the Clare Byrne show played her faux pas/reveal on the OTB as the selected clip of the debate this AM.
HH is a liability tbh, when forced off the saccharine 'hail fellow well met' script she is liable to say anything. Same with Gavin.

That is because they are not selling themselves, they are selling a scripted version.
Connolly is being herself IMO and did much better as a result.

Funny. I was about to say similar, but decided to let your half-take of what diplomacy actually entails as just wordplay.

Looking forward to one of the three from last night sitting down with Putin, Zelensky, Hamas and Netanyahu at some point to sort things out. Maybe have a bash at that Christian slaughter going on in Nigeria as chief diplomat. Just in case Mickey hasn't sorted it out by November, after all, he has that tree-planting ceremony to go to.

The president should be both a representative of the state and should have empathy for those caught up in the housing issue and those in Gaza or any serious problems, local or global, but should have no opinion on how it should be solved; that's not their role, and most definitely no opinion on the governments of the day or any opnion on policy.

There should be a non of the above option and if it wins they have to find new candidates. CC is the best speaker, unfortunately what she says is often mental especially on foreign policy.

HH is so poor, says nothing of substance and cannot answer a question directly.

But JG, my God he is worse than I ever could have imagined. Like a malfunctioning robot. What the hell was MM doing pushing him, Kelleher would have won imo but certainly a million times better than JG.

SF as well what the hell were they thinking not running a candidate, against this sort of competition they may never have a better chance.

Very clear to see why the establishment were so worried of someone else getting on the ballot, based on last night, Steen or Sheridan would have gotten a sizable vote.

I'd agree about the candidate comparison.
People seem to think that a different selection of candidates would see different topics for debates. There wouldn't be.

HH went into this debate as the safe choice and did nothing to damage that. She’ll need better lines on govt policy/performance questions however or will lose potential votes.

CC didnt offer much to the SF supporters which was a miss. She did the best as a debater but her foreign policy notions are worrying and will put a majority off i would think.

JG clearly out of his depth still. Wild candidate choice from FF.

The question should not be such a hardline "which one do you want" because that would require no fewer than a hundred candidates. The question should be "which one do you feel closer resembles your views" and vote accordingly. A "none of the above" option simply wouldn't work. You could easily see a vast majority of single-candidate voters putting that as their second preference and we'd never get a president.

I'd take the view that all 3 candidates have shown to me in yesterdays debate that they can all do the job of president, and they would all do it well. This is a direct result of the selection criteria we have and the independence required of the job.

I find Connolly alarming in her views and even language from my conservative perspective- things like “the Ukraine” are subtle but they diminish it back to the days of being a soviet satellite. Her go to cards of attacking America are tiresome and predictable, they’re frankly dangerous when so much of our economic model is tied up in US FDI and exports. I can see the FG strategists will definitely sit down and attack Connolly on this from here on in as it’s one the public would worry about. It’s easy for her ilk to pontificate but so many of our livelihoods depend on American trade

If Connolly gives it a bloody rest about Russia and Gaza and the West are baddies, and concentrates on national and local Ireland issues AND plans, she could romp it.

She can’t though as these are her calling cards

So only certain religious persuasions on this island can be republican? And so what if she was a member of the Orange Order? I thought we were all about being a multicultural country now, people from any country of birth, religion or culture is ok and should be embraced, that seems to be the preference of many who champion multiculturalism.
Or is it just that a multi-cultural population is ok as long as any presidential candidate does not have a strong faith or allegiance to either of the two main religions on the island? Many happy to see Steen excluded from the ballot for having very strong catholic views and it seems there are plenty who would dismiss HH purely for being Presbyterian if the recent media coverage about her religion is anything to go by. So many folks who are not really accepting the mantra of difference enriching us, but still like to preach it. It’s confusing.

they’re all going to have to do that - CC is just misery personified - she would be a dreadful president - we need energy and enthusiasm - if JG lossens up a bit and stop the rehearsed hand movements and tells all the wonderful ideas he has for the presidency instead of behaving like a robot - I might just vote for him - HH is probably a bit too cautious and she found herself defending the govt yesterday when really she should ignore those questions and get on with her presidential speil