Presidential Election 2025

I wonder was it Michael D who pushed them down this path or as he is only the President did he have sfa to do with it

That’s not what I’m saying at all, where did I say that? A diplomatic approach doesn’t mean appeasement, it means recognising that wars don’t end without negotiation. No matter how much force is used.

Sanctions and resistance can continue alongside efforts to find a political solution.

It’s the essence of what she said and the impact it’s had on me and others - this is a presidential election - words have impact -I’ve quoted above what she actually said - the INFERENCE - is that she wants to progress with a united ireland and get on with the voting and the preparation - which I believe is not the correct message to send to all peoples north and south, if you’re going for President

- if you’re having the wrong impact on potential voters, then you’re doing it wrong - it’s simple as that - she’s doing it wrong

With all due respect, I don’t need to listen to yet another “translation” of what CC “means”- it’s obvious that she’s courting the SF vote so she’s going to use language and sound bytes that please this audience - however it certainly doesn’t please all audiences.
There are alternative ways to bring all people on board - she’s chosen not to go this route - that tells me all I need to know about CC

There's absolutely nothing "folksy" about her.

Nothing wrong in any of that imo.

She states article 3 of the constitution including the requirements for consent, she suggests the need for the govt to prepare and she also references a cross party green paper on the subject.

If that upsets the bonfire builders on the Shankill or the Orange Order so be it, nothing controversial at all in her comments.

Personally I prefer dull to outspoken in a President. A President of Ireland is supposed to be a figurehead. When HH said she would lead trade missions, that is good for jobs. What is not good for jobs is saying Ireland can't trust the our European partners and the US. While I don't trust Trump, I also know he is thin skinned and tends to punish those who oppose him. If CC can go to Syria, I don't see why the next President shouldnt meet Trump. A handful of US companies (about 5) pay 51% of Irish corporate tax revenues. Anti-Americanism just isn't an option for Irish foreign policy. And I think in general elections, anti Americanism on the Left does deter some employees of US multinationals from voting for the Left.

I don't see condemning the war in Gaza as anti-American. I condemn it too. But if the Left are okay with meeting with the former Syrian regime, or Xi Jinping, who were committing genocide, then it does seem a double standard not to want to meet Trump. When did Michael D Higgins meet Trump since taking office? CC has admitted going to Syria when Assad was in power.

Well gee whiz… Israel just levelled Gaza. Israel had no interest in diplomatic negotiations. They made it plainly clear every single day. 50-100k dead?

But look what has just taken place in the last couple of days. Diplomacy prevailed.

I think that is what we are as a nation, once people can live their lives without too much fuss. Not much happens.

Ireland unlike other countries in Europe has no far right or far left that has taken hold.
Here it is it generally “Ah sure it’s not great, but alright, it could be worse”

Connolly might get elected as President but I think it is more to do with the quality she is up against, than Ireland going “left”.

Ffs, yourself standing up for Catherine the great, sanctions in Syria were the wrong thing, now Russia and Israel, they're bullshitting the world, Apply full sanctions - stop the war.

“Pandering to a minority in the 6 counties is not what should be done. It certainly wasn't done when nationalists were the minority”

You’ve essentially illustrated my point on the difficulty I have with how she’s worded her position on a united Iceland and how it should progress now- this is the exact impact it will have on Unionists in NI and it will set back progress in this area for years to come - they will not engage with her and will see her as someone who wishes to railroad the process in the interests of expediency as opposed to consensus.
HH has a much more diplomatic approach - she may wish ultimately for what CC wants ultimately, but her words on how she’ll go about it are far more inclusive and non threatening than CC.

You think simply acknowledging what’s already in our Constitution is a threat? Seems bizarre.