Presidential Election 2025

That wasn't the question.

Did Harry McGee take an answer given in another context, and turn it around to create a gotcha?

She did pay for it herself out of her legitimate expenses and properly declared that to SIPO.

At the time, the question was probing if somebody else (namely pro Assad elements) had paid for it.

It is completely dis-ingenuous journalism DESIGNED to smear in the eyes of those not familiar with the context.

It has to be there BY LAW.

It has nothing to do with her religion, it has to do with her comments about the importance of the Irish language.

If Michael Martin's village removed it and he was professing to the importance of the Irish language the same question would apply to him.

Did Harry McGee take an answer given in another context, and turn it around to create a gotcha?

No, he didnt @FrancieBrady

He didnt have to. Catherine Connolly did it for him. She morphed one possible scandal, into another noteworthy story.

The question was, had she received a free trip to Syria, courtesy for the Assad Regime

And Connolly, on the record, replied that No. It was paid for by the Irish Tax Payer.

Im not sure which would be worse TBH. This point in particular highlights the lack of objectivity. You are annoyed that journalists are demonstrating how ridiculous Connolly's responses are. You think he spun her response into a 'gotcha' - its ludicrous. If he tried to shoot her in the left foot, she responded by grabbing the pistol and shooting herself in the right knee.

Hypothetically, its akin to my being asked, why did i not interject while my neighbours house burned.

And for me to respond, claiming that it wasnt true that i didnt interject; i was actually throwing petrol onto it, while it burned down.

Great clarification.

Sure you could say the same thing about HH - Republicans in particular have her painted as an "orange woman", her husaband who was a member of the OO, the stories about the hit and sun in Monaghan and why HH was not more involved, the Reichstag video.

Only the media framing of HH husband could be deemed as personal attacks, along with the assertion that HH is an Orangewoman. The rest are her own doing/her team in my view.

CC - Her comments on Germany, Her comments on Ni Shionnnain - obfuscation on using the day pass to let her into LH breach of security, her comments re Hamas being the "fabric" on Palestine, her history with Syria Wallace/Daly/Doherty. Her history of work as a barrister. The image of MDH in her campaign video.

Only one of those could vaguely be considered to be digging the "dirt" on Connolly via the media the rest are her own/her team's doing. In my view.

l have a feeling , reading some of the comments on this thread that a lot of the Eoghan Harris tribe of paronoid shinners under the bed camp are posting on this page. In the two horse race that has emerged , l honestly don’t care which of them win, but the amount of digging for s()t that’s going on for both candidates beggars belief. Who would want to run for this job with the amount of s€&t being thrown. From what l see HH isn’t someone with unionist views and neither is CC some sort of mad communist. But….l don’t think either are fit to be president!

There is a staggering amount of congnitive disonance on display among Connolly supporters. It is unbelievable at times, as several posters struggle to dodge certain scandals, by point at other stories which are also damaging. I dont know how this can be handled. Perhaps its less 'cognitive disonance', and more a genuine aptitude for compartmentalization? I dont know, im not a psychiatrist.

What ever it is, reality is being spun so that every criticism against Connolly is illegitimate. Clarifications, although seeming to be damaging, are actually being spun to appear that way.

It really is amazing to watch.

Leftwing populism has some parallels with Trumpism, in that the media is always accused of lying, conspiring against the candidate on behalf of an elite.

The fact that u find her answer acceptable, and worthy of no further coverage, in and of itself. It just demonstrates the total lack of objectivity.

The story evolved from, 'Did Assad Pay for the trip' - to 'No the Irish Tax Payer did so'

That is valid and worthy of coverage - its not a Gotcha.

Very little point debating this with someone as blindly partisan as you clearly are.

To be honest when I first entered into the politics forums on boards.ie. I thought it would be similar to your type of comment analysis. At least somewhat objective but you quickly learn it is very a partisan forum. Which I was initially disappointed about. Phrases like "Mehole Martin" or "FFG" or "Shinners" are common occurrences for example.

But I learned how to read the posts. Most of the time for real feel of what the lay of the land is, I gauge certain posters reactions and make note of it - ok that is how xyz voter sees that issue, or that is how abc voter sees that issue.

Then ask these two questions -

Are the posters in question attempting to put a certain spin on it? If so why?

Are posters defensive and bringing up other issues than the topic at issue. If so why?

For me on the politics thread the real answers or analysis are never given. To see that you have to look behind the posts and why they are framed that way etc etc

I refer you to my previous response.

The fact that u find her answer acceptable, and worthy of no further coverage, in and of itself. It just demonstrates the total lack of objectivity.

The story evolved from, 'Did Assad Pay for the trip' - to 'No the Irish Tax Payer did so'

That is valid and worthy of coverage - its not a Gotcha.

Very little point debating this with someone as blindly partisan as you clearly are.

I see no further reason to engage certain posters on these issues - Its utterly pointless. If CC were found in possession of a few hundred kilos of narcotics, you would blindly spin it into something akin to a 'Legalize Drugs' argument. Its approaching cult levels of adherence to the Connolly Line.

I think some of us, probably most in fact, can still have a mature chat about the election, and the issues raised. There are a lot of excellent points being made, from all sides.

But the Partisans are mainly on Connollys side of the fence. There are a few that are open to discussion, and there is a great debate to be had over policy, and the campaign.

Others, there is quite simply no talking to. Im learning that, and it does go back to the last time i was here. The radical voices tend to be loud. Sometimes we can tune them out, other times such as now; they seek to dominate proceedings.

I remain here, chatting with people who are open to it, regardless of political lean.