Presidential Election 2025

I caught the last ten minutes, nothing really revelatory and seems to be the same talking points now in every interview.

I thought the only time CC seemed flustered (probably for the first time in the campaign) was when Claire Daly and Mick Wallace were brought up. She was walking a bit of a tightrope with her words there but PK moved on fairly quick

I thought she really had to bite her tongue around the Gaza/Donald Trump question, but she handled it fairly well. I think that neither candidate really is reacting badly to any of the sort of gotcha questions, probably because for the most part they are not really scandalous situations. Knowing people doing fox hunting or failing garda vetting are somewhat tame in comparison to the usual politicians in this country who actually break the laws themselves, get called up to tribunals on the regular, and then act smarmy and smug about it.

The whole of Europe didn’t - and given it was a relative peace time, the can was kicked down the road - and in fairness job creation was a priority in that time - I won’t “defend” her- it is what it is- but have we ever given proper consideration to just what protections we have in place for ourselves in terms of defence? It’s coming home to roost now but even credible opposition parties weren’t exactly placing defence as a top 3 item in their election manifestos so let’s not retrospect too much here

If the media are going to keep battering away with the same questions I can't see the dial shifting much.

I think regarding the questionnaire, it is interesting to examine the responses that the candidates had for some of the topics. Il stick to foreign policy in this post, because it is probably the area where I am in frequently in oppostion to Connolly. Il list some of the questions which are FP related, give CC's response, and critique each in turn. I welcome discussion on this, and if you disagree with my analysis, by all means comment.

The ‘triple lock’, determining when the Defence Forces can serve as part of an international force, should be retained -

"I believe in neutrality as an active, living tradition of peace-making, bridge-building, and compassionate diplomacy. The triple-lock is core to our neutrality. It is one of Ireland’s greatest strengths, and I will defend it and the triple lock with determination."

I dont disagree that Ireland's neutrality is the best policy for us to maintain; but I can point to the UN mandate portion of the tiple lock, as being grossly dependent on the whims of the veto wielding members of the UNSC. CC has been very critical of the US et al, using their Veto to prevent certain peace keeping missions, as well as to pervert the will of the UN regarding Palestinian recognition, and Israeli condemnation. Yet she would maintain the triple lock, knowing that by doing so, the very same UN political stagnation will reduce the amount of peacekeeping missions which Ireland could become involved with. She maintains both stances, depending on what topic she wishes to discuss, and I have yet to see this inconsistency challenged properly by her opponent.

Ireland should cooperate more with European Union member states on defence

"I'm a committed European but, under Ursula von der Leyen, there has been a terrifying rush to militarisation. Ireland has a proud tradition of neutrality and we should not abandon that to become involved in dangerous NATO or EU militarisation."

This is probably the moment I disagree most vigorously, as it goes to the core of Connollys radical activist left wing views on the EU. She has attacked von der Leyen by name, while failing to acknowledge that it was on UvdL's watch, that Ukraine was invaded by Russia. This is without precedent for the EU, and the union correctly moved to assist a European state that remains fighting for its survival to this day. But CC prefers to frame this question as being only about Pro and Anti 'Militarization' when discussing Europe as a whole. The 'terrifying rush to militarization', was preceded by an altogether more terrifying spectre of Russia returning to a 19th/20th century expansionist foreign policy; This absolutely necessitated a response from the EU. In my view, CC moves beyond pacifism, into an Anti-European position on this topic, and we are all aware of her erroneous German militarism analogy, which was politically illiterate IMHO.

Ireland needs to invest more heavily in defence and security

"We have no need for weapons of war. We need homes, disability services, healthcare, and school places for all. But our defence forces must be valued, and paid accordingly. This is what we should invest our resources in."

Point of fact, i dont view homes, disability services and healthcare as being mutually exclusive to having a well funded and equiped defense forces. Again she moves away from the question of foreign policy, and pivots toward it being somehow up for debate. Yes we can prioritize important domestic concerns, but we also need to shore up our military, as Europe faces real security concerns.

Ireland should be willing to assist in the defence of any EU member state that is attacked

"We should of course immediately provide humanitarian assistance and shelter for displaced people in the event of an attack or war. Any military response should be subject to a UN mandate, as is required by the triple lock."

Again on this one CC uses the triple lock as a way to negate the possibility of assistance to an EU member, should it suffer attack. In the case of a non-Nato member of the EU, being attacked; CC would allow a UN veto by Russia or China, to prevent Ireland from offering assistance. This is another confirmation of her biases against the EU, based entirely on her prejudice against the alliance as a whole.

NATO is partly to blame for the war in Ukraine

"We live in a dangerous world of competing military blocs. NATO has engaged in decades of military expansion, a process that has undoubtedly led to increased risk of war. Russia is the aggressor in Ukraine and should end its invasion."

Yet again, CC choses to engage in radical activist talking points, which is quite useful to Russia. Moscow has always sought to point the finger at NATO, and the west, as being responsible for their war with Ukraine. This is because Putin has always viewed NATO through a cold war lens, and regarded it as being a near perfect analogue of the Warsaw Pact. But while the WP frequently engaged, and interferred with its member states, NATO has never done so. It is a defensive organization that must be applied to, for membership of. Given the history of Europe, it is no surprise that most former Eastern-Bloc/Warsaw-Pact countries, rushed to join NATO after the Iron Curtain collapsed. This is not NATO expansion, so much as those victims of previous Russian aggression moving to ensure that they wont suffer the same again in future. On this point in particular, i find CC's views to be the most baffling and contentious; For supporters of Ukraine, it is also very undermining when it comes to insuring that Kyiv remains well supported during the current conflict.

Those are my thoughts, and I could say they explain my opposition to her candidacy. Humphreys is a poor opponent in this presidential race, and in my opinion, were CC faced with stiffer opposition, she could be pinned down on these topics. But we are where we are, we have two poor candidates, and we must chose one. I find it dissapointing that the left wing parties chose Connolly as their candidate, especially considering that, none of the above is surprising; we have known her stance on Europe, and 'the west' for many years, and its a position which i remain unwilling to support.

Interested to hear peoples thoughts-

Our defence force has been gone to shite for a lot longer than even HH has been in government. In any case a lot of people that oppose her want to have a smaller defence force not larger, as that means we are even more neutral somehow.

But HHs husband isnt a member and hasn't been for 50 years! This is a smear by any standard, and a sectarian one at that.

Mary McAleese hosted the OO in the Aras and her husband opened a dialogue with representatives of loyalist paramilitaries. It was viewed positively as a way of building bridges, the sky didnt fall in.

So now there’s a time limit on what we’re allowed to ask about? Fifty years apparently wipes the slate clean - unless, of course, it’s someone else’s past under discussion?

Either past associations matter or they don’t. You don’t get to switch the rules depending on who’s being questioned.

Ah now come on you have to know the rules it is only a “smear” if CC’s viewpoints, past alliances, lineage, past mistakes are are attacked it is not a “smear” if HH is targeted similarly.

The likes of @harryharry25 is correct that CC gives the same answers to all questions with a smile. No deviation. The Connolly voting bloc will love that.

Very consistent, and firm. Gerry Adams used to do the same thing except without the smile and soft voice. Connolly never had a beard as far as I know either!

And CC doesn’t use Adams tactic of the overt rhetorical “Let me answer your question with a question”. Her go-to is “As a mother”. But that steel and brazenness of Adams is in Connolly.

HH is just giving similar answers she has already given at this stage. As well.

Both candidates are not phased as it is the same answers over and over. No Gavin like panicking.

Not much point in listening to anymore debates. Just rinse and repeat. Now it all depends on the turnout and maybe the weather. Unless something major is unearthed between now and polling day.

Ok so no rehabilitation after half a century for HHs husband but instant rehabilitation for eirigi member on early release from prison.

You have to be rehabilitated after being a member of the Orange Order? Strange comment to make.