Presidential Election 2025

@AndrewJRenko

I really think its ill-advised to get into a back and forth of ad hominem attacks.

You have asked questions, been replied to and engaged with, at which point you abondon ship, and leave to start a debate with someone else, usually on totally different topics.

• Foreign Policy of Catherine Connolly
• Connolly campaign in general
• The Germany comments (i think i recall you bringing this up, but its part of FP IMHO)
• Ukraine

I responded on all of these, and specifically responded to you RE Ukraine. Il copy that below.

I and others will engage in discussion on all of these topics; I have no issue getting into a debate with you on anything you wish to discuss. I can link you to long-form posts on Germany, foreign policy, Ukraine, - whatever you want.

What I wont do is waste time getting into a pointless back and forth that dodges the issues being discussed.

If you want a constructive chat, by all means. Respond to me. I will be on and offline over the weekend for family reasons.

If you just want more nonsense back and forths, where you get to avoid actual engagements. In that case please refrain from quoting or responding to me. I dont want to associate with that type of nonsense on this forum.

Regards

From:2nd October, this thread:

A lot will depend on the level of support that Ukraine receives - and the positioning of Washington/Trump, on the conflict.

Both of these factors are capable of fluctuating to a serious degree. Ukraine has always maintained that it will fight on, and will accept no settlement that gives up territory. We could debate that, as I for one do not see them getting the Crimean Peninsula back. I worry that they may also end up losing some of the eastern territories (portions of Luhansk and Donetsk). None of us are privy to internal discussions in Kyiv on what they are willing to accept - they are playing the diplomatic game correctly, by maintaining that they will give nothing up. In contrast to Trump who seems to throw out portions of US Doctrinal Thinking on twitter so he can get 'likes' from his base.

It seems clear to me though that Russian War goals have also fluctuated. Its easy to prove this is you examine the conflict from day one. Putin believed Ukraine would utterlly crumble. He would annex the territory he wanted, and what remained would become another Belarus. When this utterly failed, he 'reframed' his war goals toward Luhansk and Donetsk, and tried to say that these were the central targets of the 'special military operation'.

The optics of the conflict have always been entirely negative for Russia, and Putins draconian muzzling of the media in Russia, seems to indicate that internal support is a real concern. Casualties have always been hard to pinpoint but Russia has lost more troops during this conflict, than the US has lost during Vietnam and the War on Terror combined. They have also been forced to get assistence from North Korea, which again, really seems an embarassment to me.

You asked for a solution, and I can only speculate;

Putin needs to end this conflict and claim victory - or he is finished in the long run. Even if we negate the possibility of the regime being toppled, his own allies will oust him - this has been the way of it in Russia going back decades.

Knowing this, the West and Ukraine could come to an agreement whereby the conflict becomes frozen. Territories are taken, but never acknowledged or accepted by the International community (outside of a few Russian alligned actors). Putin then gets to point to these unofficial gains, and claim a win to his government and the Russian people. What these gains will be (Crimea, Luhansk, Donetsk, a buffer around said territories) - i would be diving further into speculation if i went any further.

Ukraine needs support, that is a fact, and I hope they receive it. In terms of looping this back to the Presidential Election, i think CC's opinions are the most antithetical to that fact.

Interested to hear peoples thoughts.

The 'information' required by the process was 'in order'. An application form filled in with a full declaration.

So why no inquiry?
Somewhere someplace somebody must have flagged this security weakness on paper. Producing that wouldn't breach anyone's confidentiality.
But nothing, not a single piece of concrete proof.

If nobody did then there is a bigger problem to deal with.

What 'whistle blower'?

Connolly's base are more energized, and have begun to believe conspiratorially, that Connolly is being targeted; with her own spoken words and opinions, mostly in context.

To suggest that Catherine Connolly is not being targeted by sections of the media is simply not credible.

The media doesn’t need to lie to be misleading; choosing which details to amplify and which to bury can shape public perception just as effectively. Look at Pat Leahy last week in the IT about Russia – or the story about Syria this week – it’s straight out of the "anti-Corbyn playbook"— guilt by association, soft insinuations about foreign policy stances, and amplified controversy are all tactics we've seen before.

The example of the Syria trip and the fixation on taxpayer funding (everything a TD does is paid for by the taxpayer) or selective mention of attendees (Daly and Wallace but not O’Sullivan and others) underscores this. It reflects a deeper discomfort the media class often has with figures who stray too far from accepted political orthodoxies — especially when they're from the left but articulate, experienced, and credible.

Supporting someone like HH may feel "safe" to some on the left, including you, but it’s also an act of capitulation — one that shores up a centrist-right consensus and undermines genuine alternatives. Your own unease that comes with this kind of strategic voting is obvious from your posts.

If CC were to win — or even make a stronger showing than expected — it would indeed be a blow to the narrative that only centrist, establishment-aligned figures are viable or respectable. It would show that voters can resist the media's framing, that there's an appetite for something different, and that figures like Connolly can't be so easily boxed out of national life. The poll last week was very positive in this regard.

The presidency might be largely symbolic, but symbols matter — especially in times of deep political cynicism. A Connolly presidency would symbolise a break with the narrow spectrum of so-called acceptable politics and signal that integrity, independence, and non-alignment with establishment power can resonate with voters.

I think its a straight up moment of having to agree to disagree

Look at Pat Leahy last week in the IT about Russia

I saw the Leahy story, and it speaks to those who remain bewildered by the Foreign Policy positions of Connolly, and the reactionary left in general. Connolly comparing current German and European Military spending, to that of the 1930s, was politically illiterate. Its been debunked by many, including me, and I have yet to see someone offer credible pushback on this topic. The comparison is also beneficial to Russia, in that it promotes a 'Nazis in Kyiv' dialogue, which they have encouraged from the outset. I will now clarify, that NO, i am not accusing Connolly of being a 'Russian plant', it would be ludicrous to suggest that. But to me, there is no doubt that Moscow hopes that voices like Connolly's receive amplification. They have a vested interest in seeing European Support for Kyiv diminish, so as to strengthen their position.

The example of the Syria trip and the fixation on taxpayer funding (everything a TD does is paid for by the taxpayer)

Again, i am not seeing much chance of discussion on this. I think it is relevant to note that the Syrian story has morphed during this news cycle. It was initially argued that, Assad, or agents on his behalf, may have been behind the funding of this trip. Connolly, in clarifying this, pointed out that it was funded from her expense account. This is not merely her salary, as yes that is also 'technically' tax payer funded. The fact is she used moneys from her discretionary funds to pay for the trip. To her base, that is fine. To others, it is possibly a worse indication toward her credibility, and judgement.

Supporting someone like HH may feel "safe" to some on the left, including you, but it’s also an act of capitulation — one that shores up a centrist-right consensus and undermines genuine alternatives. Your own unease that comes with this kind of strategic voting is obvious from your posts.

I appreciate this point, in that it acknowledges my lack of comfort, which is real. I do feel I am forced to back Humphreys, because its a presidential election; and I cannot change my belief that the left were wrong to nominate from the activist bloc. I worried when I heard about Connolly seeking the nomination, and those fears were realized when she was selected. I remained open to her candidacy but, again, everything I feared was realized when she commented on foreign policy. I also had no doubt that she would shoot herself in the foot during the campaign.

The only situation where i could back Connolly, without hesitation, is if she were in a two way race with Maria Steen, or someone from that bloc. Even though i would still believe Connolly was less than unsuitable as a nominee, i would have to 'step up' because Steen would be a bigger danger in that situation.

I should also state that, aside from misgivings about the radical bloc on our side, were this a general election; I would have to say my piece, but vote left none the less. I am hoping that the left emerge from this, having seen the benefits of cooperation. I want unified left wing vote management in the next general. And co-operation between parties in countering FFG.

I dont think you and I can agree at present. In 4 years time, we more than likely will be on side, and arguing for a final end of FFG duopoly.

Friends and family visiting, just the usual! lol.

I usually try to reply when ever i see a message, it just depends on the times.

curious why you asked!

That is one amazing quote. It puts FF and FG clearly on the Right. It will be interesting to see how FF grassroots react to their leader and his associates voting for the FG candidate after him making such an abject mess of the FF candidate selection.

“It puts FF and FG clearly on the Right.”

Using that logic it puts CC as far left as is possible

“It is remarkable how much people will accept foggy memories, obfuscations and outright lies just cause the person is not a part of the Government.”

I’m not - and Let’s be quite clear here- I don’t accept one word that comes out of that far left agitators mouth - and if the very centre and centre left to centre right people I know are anything to go by- they don’t either .
And a few agitators on boards.ie trying to pedal their alternative versions won’t change that one iota; just so you’re aware - there is plenty of hope left - the Irish people, given their - oh wait let me get this correct - “from Ireland, a history of colonisation, “- won’t be hoodwinked by a sophist .