Independent socialist Catherine Connolly’s coolness to Brussels and hostility to Donald Trump put her at odds with the Irish government.

She’s slammed NATO, voted against EU treaties, been accused of offering propaganda boosts for dictators from Russia to Syria — and now she’s on track to become Ireland’s next president.

Catherine Connolly, a former mayor of the western city of Galway who’s spent the past nine years as an opposition socialist lawmaker in Ireland’s parliament, has built a commanding polling lead ahead of Friday’s election versus her only challenger, former government minister Heather Humphreys from the center-ground Fine Gael party.

The latest opinion poll, published Wednesday night, put Connolly on 55.7 percent support compared to Humphreys’ 31.6 percent. Results will be announced Saturday, but the surprisingly fleet-footed 68-year-old Connolly acts and talks like she’s already won.

  • Buffalox@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    44
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    24 hours ago

    EU is not perfect, it’s OK to criticize, it’s only crazy if they think no EU is better than having EU.

  • Credibly_Human@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    39
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 day ago

    What in the world are these self defeating mixes of opinions.

    I don’t think any human being of good health could hold those opinions simultaneously and in good faith.

      • Credibly_Human@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        19 hours ago

        I must then ask, as someone not familiar with Irish politics.

        Are they wrong? Does she actually want to leave the EU and or NATO?

  • Cryan24@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    The president is a powerless figure head so her opinions dont matter, I am disappointed we couldn’t vote Michael D again, atleast he brought his dogs out for meet and greets.

  • Bruncvik@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    1 day ago

    One thing to recognise here is that neither governmental party was able to field a viable candidate against her. FF, the major government partner, had their candidate quit the race after the first debate. FG, the junior partner, nominated a candidate who clearly didn’t want to run, due to all the skeletons in her closet the media are now dragging out.

    To be fair, however, the government always faces an uphill battle. Our President, despite being largery powerless, had been viewed in the past two decades or so as the moral counterweight to the immoral government. Nominating a former government minister was thus a very tone-deaf decision.

      • Skiluros@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        18
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        24 hours ago

        Seems reasonable in the video.

        But the “NATO opposition” is a massive red flag that suggests a complete inability to read and understand the russians.

        • mrdown@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          15
          ·
          23 hours ago

          I will be for nato when it get rid of the usa and it’s influence and stop collaborating with Israel

              • Skiluros@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                6
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                21 hours ago

                I am not a “lib”, the very term “liberal” isn’t even used correctly in North America.

                This was a very specific answer to specific claims (get rid of the US, stop collaborating with Israel). These are ridiculous statements in context of NATO’s primary goal, defence against russian invasions.

                • mrdown@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  19 hours ago

                  These are ridiculous statements in context of NATO’s primary goal

                  They are facts. Opposing NATO doesn’t necessary mean not supporting Ukrainians. Countries has signed international conventions that gives right to support the occupied like Ukraine and Gaza without being in NATO.

                  Do you still trust the USA what the rest of NATO will do if the USA goes full Russian supporter?

                  NATO is a supporter of Israel which shouldn’t has anything to do with the area that they try to protect

                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel–NATO_relations

                  https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/opinions_21331.htm?selectedLocale=en

                  A new Palestinian state would need help in disarming Hamas and other terrorist groups, while Israel would need reassurance that it would not have to bear the burden of protecting its citizens alone. And NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer’s openness to a NATO mission in Iraq bodes well both for bolstering a new Iraqi government and for rebuilding Alliance unity.

                  Look at how Nato can’t even condemn Israeli occupation and backing of settlements and violent settlers

                  I

                • Alcoholicorn@mander.xyz
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  6
                  arrow-down
                  5
                  ·
                  21 hours ago

                  Russia can’t even invade, let alone occupy Ukraine lmao, and Israel is entirely orthogonal if not detrimental to supplying Ukraine with weapons.

                  Find a new boogeyman to justify a “defense” organization that has never acted in self-defense.

          • IncogCyberSpaceUser@piefed.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            21 hours ago

            Are you saying nothing they advocate for matters at all? No? Then where do you draw the line? Seems like a disingenuous statement. Of course it matters what the opinions of a elected official are.

            • neeeerrrdd@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              19 hours ago

              Sure, it matters what the opinions of an elected official are. But when the elected official in question holds little to no power, then does it really matter what their specific opinion on NATO is, especially when the other candidates are right-wing dipshits? It’s good to have a head of state with generally respectable opinions, but in the grand scheme of things, this doesn’t matter.

          • Skiluros@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            23 hours ago

            There is some truth to that, but I think you generally want savvy individuals even in ceremonial positions

  • unexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    I dont even care about her politics, but bro looks like she is gonna fall over dead in 20 minutes. Nobody should be allowed to become president of anything at almost 70. Retirement age is 65 for a reason. Just sit back and enjoy your remaining 10 years on the planet and let the people that will actually live to see the results of their work make decisions.