Presidential Election 2025

This is a good commentary on what has happened HH’s campaign in the last few days -and I like the “wooden Heather” vs “mean Heather” analogy .

I’ve never found her “convincing”- she snarls and then smiles at the end of what she’s saying - I’ve always felt when she’s defending herself, especially in relation to the Shane O’Farrell case, that she’d rather be anywhere else but talking about it -

I’ve felt throughout this election she’s been trying to market herself as a Labrador - when in fact, she’s clearly a Doberman - a good and loyal dog yes, but not with the same universal appeal.

“Mean Heather already seems to have much more oomph than Wooden Heather, to whom we’ve been treated so far. But it is the desperate lurch of the pendulum that is so striking.“

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/presidential-election/senan-molony-president-for-all-image-is-chucked-out-the-window-as-heather-humphreys-makes-desperate-pivot/a1671961241.html

Like any Barister,CC could have turned down business from banks repossessing houses if her principles regarding the homeless were genuine

It’s a fair criticism

My difficulty is neither deserve my vote and it essentially has been that way from day 1. I want to vote in a way I will have no regrets walking out of the polling booth but whatever way I vote, it won’t be an enjoyable experience, that’s for sure.

Like my Garda mate. Doesn't agree with repossessions and has strong opinions against the banks, but has been there to facilitate removal of owners to uphold the law of the court. Guess he should have just told his boss that he wasn't doing it.

I just saw the FG hypocrisy video - stunning

The way they've laid out the narrative of the video is basically -

1. CC qualifies as a barrister
2. CC represents banks in repossession cases when the country was struggling
3. CC later says in the Dail that it's wrong that people lost their homes

Like…..what is there argument? That after first hand experience through those years and because of the work she was doing at the time she should be arguing in favour of repossessions years later?

Like if she'd represented a murderer in a trial and then later said murder is bad that's hypocrisy?

I get that civil and criminal cases are different but the video is just bizarre and based on a weak argument - it's basically saying that you shouldn't be annoyed about her representing banks because the really bad thing is that she hasn't been pro-bank repossession in comments years later?

This is along the lines of "Mayor Quimby even released Sideshow Bob, a man twice convicted of attempted murder. Can you trust a man like Mayor Quimby? Vote Sideshow Bob."

As they were in power at the time, FF/FG could have legislated against banks repossessing homes. The hypocrisy of Humphries painting a solicitor as the "bad person" in all this is much more serious than that

The bar council has also proven your claim wrong

I'll help you understand better

1. CC qualifies as a barrister

2. CC represents banks in repossession cases when the country was struggling as she is legally required to do so under the cab-rank rule

3. CC later says in the Dail that it's wrong that people lost their homes

4. The FG party that HH is part of allow the repressions to go ahead

Does that make it clearer for you?

No I don't know what that rule is

Ah, the comfort of anonymity!

Defenders of Connolly's poor judgement like to cast rehabilitation as a binary thing when it is anything but. It is an ongoing process and one that people demonstrate over the course of years, not days. It is a process that doesn't wipe the slate clean the day you walk out (early) from prison.

I’m not familiar with the people you’re referring to, but on my point: I haven’t claimed rehabilitation is binary — that’s a mischaracterisation to fit your argument. Rehabilitation does take time (and it varies from case to case), and it’s not necessarily linear. However, it doesn’t start the day a person is released from incarceration; it begins long before that.

While the slate isn’t wiped completely clean, once someone has served their sentence and is released, they’ve done their time and are free to move on with their life — unless specific restrictions on movement or employment apply. In this case, there weren’t any, so the person was entitled to seek employment. Like many who’ve spent time in prison, they would likely need support in finding work.

Trying to make rehabilitation "very much the issue" is just deflection. The issue, as it has been from day one, is that she signed someone in every day for 6 months who she knew full well was never going to pass vetting.

The onle person deflecting here is you. You have no idea of what CC knew or didn't know, you are choosing a nefarious motive based solely on political bias. You don't like CC's politics, you have no intention of voting for her but, like the grandees of FG & FF, you're incapabale of articulating a convincing argument in favour of HH and thus you relapse to this type of disingenuous posting against CC.

It's understandable that you wouldn't know what that rule is. Or at least it was before today, a quick Google or news search should tell you all you need to know.

However, Humphries' lack of knowledge on the cab-rank rule, despite being a former minister for justice, should be disturbing for anybody who believes that to be the reason and is considering voting for HH.

I think what she's actually done here is manipulation and dirty play. Personally speaking that's not a trait I want to see in my president

I'd be surprised if Humphries doesn't at least offer a formal apology and potentially even step down from the race because of this. FG having created that video could also cause untold harm

How would she 'know' this?

If she had a prejudice she would guess maybe, but how would she 'know'?