Presidential Election 2025

I know Paddy Power do a lot of these odds to entice punters but how any bookie with even a smidgen of knowledge of Irish politics would put HH ahead of Connolly in this election is beyond me. she's steets ahead of the other two in terms of political nous ,track record and ability to articulate her point .it looks like this PP stunt can be added to previous miscalculations like paying out on hillary to beat Trump and Brexit to be defeated.

'This doesn't appear to stop her critique over it'....why on earth would it, if she disagrees with it? A bizarre statement, I hardly need mention the many instances whereby populace supporting government policy around ghe globe doesn't mean others should drop objective analysis in favour of acquiescence, does it?

No i didnt. Because, and im sorry to say this - its not relevent.

Leaving Nuclear proliferation aside, what we face today are large conventional military threats. Russia is the clearest example of this, but the case can also be made against China (re Taiwan), Iran, North Korea etc.

Yes some of the above are nuclear powers, but Nuclear Deterrance theory has been seen as successfully blocking the use of Nuclear weapons. We can of course debate this, and an argument could be made on the necessity of preventing an Iranian Nuclear weapon; Im not going to reprosecute Sam Harris' argument against allowing a radical Islamic state to possess Nukes. (if asked, i will do so, but its not relevent to discussion on the Irish Presidential Election, or Catherine Connolly - the mods may object to this detour)

Since the end of the cold war, only conventional warfare has been employed. A discussion could be had on terrorism, and irregular warfare, but in terms of the hardware used; Its entirely conventional. And therin lies the problem. Europe has relied for too long on the NATO guarantee, and on a liberal ideology that military conflict and expansion were outdated. Russia successfully blew this doctrine out of existence when it invaded Ukraine. Europe needed to respond and it did.

The left fragmented at this moment. I, and many lefties, could see the need to bolster our defences. We are not merely defending ourself; we are defending western values, democracy, and the enlightenment. Yes we abhor violence and war, but if it comes, we need to defend ourselves, and we require the tools to do so, even if only to deter further aggression. We need the ability to maintain our own sovereignty, so as to render it futile for powers like Russia to feel an advantage in using military expansion as a tool of their foreign policy.

The other bloc of the left, delved further into a post 1970s radical disarmament, 'make love not war' faction. The answer, as they see it, is always peace and diplomacy. They would have Ukraine sit down and work out a deal to end the war. The fact that this would involve rewarding Russia with actual gains, is of no concern to them. And they fail to see the blindingly obvious message that sends.

'The west is weak- if we attack, they will sue for peace, and we will make gains'. - this is NOT the message we should be sending.

In an ideal world every player would simply balance against their opponents, and the game would end with stalemate. This, not being an ideal world, is faced with Russia and its allies, employing military expansion as a tool of their foreign policy. We are obliged to respond. Being shouted down as 'warmongerers' and 'neocon shills' seems to be a cost we must pay.

I dont know what else to say, but there is a shocking deficit of real thought-out analysis on display, especially with regard to Catherine Connolly - not just her, to be fair. Boyd Barrett, Clare Daly, and many of this radical left seem to be the tail wagging the dog, most of the time

I dont know if it makes any difference to be honest. I came back to the politics forum for this Election Cycle, after being away from it for a while.

Im happy to debate anything, with anyone. But when the same points are continually raised, it becomes frustrating. That post RE German Re-Arming, and CCs ridiculous comparison to the 1930s - I resisted for a week @blanch152 . Honestly my wife doesnt think I should engage in these chats, because sometimes they drive me up the wall. But when i logged on this morning, i felt i had to post it - to try and explain the issue to those willing to listen. Obviously its my opinion, but it is backed by facts. What more can we do!

However, i dont even know if it makes a dent. It seems that Irish politics is badly polarized. I have no issue with saying that i agree with Catherine Connolly on many issues, but i disagree on much of her foreign policy. But im in a minority, as from what i can see, most people chose their horse, and then back it all the way.

Some people seem to have backed CC, and will defend her no matter what she says. Literally, she could take to twitter right now, and claim that the Americans were responsible for Pearl Harbour, and Alaska should be handed back to Russia - she could blame NATO for the Chernobyl disaster; and i have the real feeling that large amounts of people would begin furiously typing about how incredibly correct these opinions are!

Anyway, watch this space i guess

The 'army' didn't need to make a distinction.

@FrancieBrady - you are obviously entitled to your opinion on every matter. But defending CCs comments on Germany is a mistake, because on this point she is Literally, and FACTUALLY incorrect. Like I said in my original post - she is putting the horse before the cart. She did compare the situation RE the German Defense Sector, with German Re-armament in the 20s/30s - the two periods are not remotely comparable.

Even the left wing bloc WITHIN GERMANY would disagree with CC here. Only the outer fringe of the left will continue to follow her line of reasoning, and its a mistake to do so.

If i could ask you this - could you please read my post from earlier - and refute it where you think it is wrong. You believe you are on firm ground supporting CC - ok thats fine. Let me invite you to actually attack the position i layed out. And we can debate it if you wish.

Im never actually seeing a cogent argument for how or why CC is correct - all i keep seeing are small peacemeal statements that go nowhere toward actually proving her position.

I respond here with genuine sincerity, and i would like to hear back

Ok this is an interesting point. Yes i fully support disenfranchising the Russian State. In the early months of the war, we saw a lot of Western Companies withdraw from Russia, and lots of sanctions placed on Moscow.

Unfortunitely we lost a lot of mementum since 2022. The decades prior tied Russia to Europe economically, and especially in the energy sector. The connections are being slowly broken, but it will take many years.

I should point out too that when the Biden Administration decided to get involved offering Liquid Natural Gas (LNG) to the European Market, this was a good move, which Europe seemed to accept! Unfortunately the reactionary left attacked this move, claiming that it was merely a new example of Washington looking to 'profit' from the War. I was here in the politics thread at the time, and the main arguments were a back and forth;

On one hand there were people arguing, as i did, that anything that weakens Russia economically, was a good thing. And that the LNG supply from the US, would be temporary, as Europe moved toward greater energy independence

On the other hand, there were large amounts of posters claiming it was just another example of WESTERN CAPITALISTIC EMPIRE profiting from the war. It was no surprise that this group ALSO felt that

• NATO caused the invasion
• The US Military Industrial Complex's only goal was to sell weapons and profit from them
• These two points were frequently tied - so as to say that - NATO caused the war, so the Americans could profit from it

Its tedious; Its like playing tennis without a net. Anything that is said can be blamed or equated with Western Imperialism.

Yes.