Presidential Election 2025

Having grown up in rural Ireland I can confidently say that I've never seen a hunt. Probably because I didn't grow up in a wealthy part of rural Ireland. Fox hunting for sport is a past time for people who own horses. People with large amounts of prime land. Wealthy people.

I'm not vegan nor vegetarian. I think fox hunting is disgusting. If you need to cull an animal, do it humanely.

They were just asking both candidates questions. CC could just answer the questions instead of deflecting. Raises serious concerns for me about transparency. I'm old enough to remember Haughey dismissing questions about his wealth. I was from a strong FF family and I bought it hook, line and sinker. I saw his removal (when I was 12 and didnt know better) as a betrayal, like how Thatchers supporters on the UK saw hers. I'm now older and wiser, and since I had the vote, have usually voted Independent. A lesson I've learned is that a of a candidate wont give a straight answer, theres probably a reason for that.

I hope the presidency will not suffer a decline in standards in the coming years. I hope we wont see it become less transparent.

Humphreys seems to have been selected on the basis that senior FGers liked her rather than selecting someone capable of winning an election. McGuinness would have been much better. Perhaps even Sean Kelly would have been better.

I dont think FF or FG considered it important enough to invest much time in candidate selection. Everyone assumed for years it would be Mairead McGuinness or Mary Lou McDonald.

Heather Humphreys was considered a strong candidate among the FG ranks, they seemed to be grateful someone of her caliber was willing to go forward after Mairead McGuinness withdrew, there was little hesitancy to approve her.

It does make you wonder about the people who run this country when you see what we've seen from Humphreys in this campaign when the spotlight is on her.

If this is among the best they have to offer then what would the people in cabinet appear as under similar scrutiny?

That's the problem with the kind of capture that happened in the legacy media. It kept telling FFG what it wanted to hear. Now, both parties have had a serious leadership failure and this campaign has almost unified what has been, up until now, a fragmented Left. And in the IT poll, that combined Left had more support than FFG.

EH-ther was atrocious. Exemplifies the state of the current FG party when that’s what they nominate.

Given Connollys lead coming into last nights debate, I can't see Humphreys turning anyone around to vote for her with her performance. Connolly is the master of cool in debates.

This is a genuine question, and I'll be honest and say I am not going to look at 462 pages to see if it's been said before.

If Connolly is running as an independent, why did I have a Sinn Fein campaigner at my door on Saturday trying to convince me to vote for her?

Is this standard for the parties without a nominee to pick one and campaign for them?

Because Sinn Féin are supporting Connolly

https://sinnfein.ie/news/sinn-fein-to-support-catherine-connolly-for-president/

Fair enough, I try not to watch political news, I figured it had to be a simple explanation. Thanks both

Surely from a practical point of view, if foxes are this widespread threat to livestock and need culling because of their numbers, there has to be a more effective way to manage their numbers than picking them off 1 at a time using multiple people, dogs horses, digging holes and baiting them and prepping the hunt?

I've lived in rural Ireland but have never come across this pursuit. Obviously if you bring emotions into it there's no way you can argue this is the most humane way to do it - I don't think HH was claiming that either. But she was talking about the need to cull them as part of the reason

Surely putting emotions aside this is a really impractical and ineffective way to control fox numbers?

It's a big part of the equestrian trade too cluedo, young horses broken by traders and dealers and with hunting experience are a valuable commodity and a big trade. I'd agree that the hunting in itself is barbaric. A lot of hunts now use scented drags also instead of live bait. The hounds are also a big trade.

For sure, and I happen to have no strong feelings on it anyway moreso because if you'd asked me a week ago I wouldn't have been able to tell you if it happened in Ireland or not.

So for me it's not whether they're for or against it, but was reflecting on their answers which was basically both agreeing that a cull is needed - sounds reasonable - but one candidate saying hunting is a good idea and the other saying they're against the hunt.

It's not a definitive issue for me but I can't get my head around why HH seems to be so strongly behind this based on it being necessary for cull and being a long standing tradition.

I did like HH answer that it's up to the government of the day and if they ban it she'd have no problem signing it.

I just got the sense that HH is too stuck on certain views that she can't objectively criticise.

The 2 parts of the debate that I noticed with this were the questions on Foxhunting and the question on the EU

I heard a lot of vagueness when asked for specifically when she has ever criticised the EU. The framing was interesting - they basically asked if she just agrees with everything the EU says and votes dumb in line with everything the EU proposes. And her answer didn't do anything to convince me otherwise. I failed to see her criticise the EU and failed to see her attribute any blame on the US for arming Israel despite multiple opportunities. I'm pro-EU and voted for all the treaties, I campaigned for Lisbon. But I have had plenty of criticism for the EU, portions of treaties and figures like von der Leyen over the years. I would hate to think anyone would be steadfast EU everything blindly in the same way I hate the narrative from the US and right wing UK papers that EU is always a bad thing in everything it does

She seems to lack the ability for nuance in her views on EU, US and Foxhunting in favour of simple binary views on each that seem unwavering even if she claims vaguely that she understands the nuance. And then she seems to think it's a weakness for the other candidate to not hold fast to a binary view and try to paint any criticism as being a binary anti that thing

And don't get me wrong I think CC is more anti EU and anti US/West than she's portraying in these debates, but the overriding feeling I get is that she actually has her own opinions on issues whereas HH either doesn't have the capacity for nuance, or is simply hiding or obfuscating views likely because she's had to do so as a government minister toeing a line for so many years

It wasn't hard for her to criticise something, any specific example or person, from the EU last night. She was given so many opportunities to answer that question. It wasn't hard for her to praise the US-brokered peace deal while admitting they played a part in the genocide. Why do we need to pussyfoot around that? It's like we all know the truth yet are supposed to pretend it's not the case, and if we say it out loud it means we hate everything about the west.

It's nuance. I love the US, I've worked, studied and lived there. I'll go over often. Having a single criticism isn't throwing everything out of the water. Same with the EU. I love the Euro. I've worked in Brussels. It's been great for us. But is it above any criticism?

I got the impression that HH was afraid to mention anything she's been critical of, or else she genuinely hasn't ever. And neither is a good answer