Race for the ARAS 2025

[Snapchap]

What about a potential president (the current front runners in fact, who tells a journalist asking difficult questions to "f**k off and leave me alone"? Would that candidate be suitable for the office? Or would she also be too much of "a total ignoramus"?

Depends on when she was asked to be honest. If it was at a press conference then it wouldn't be okay but if the journalist ambushed her out of work or at her home she's more than entitled to tell them to f**k off.

She was asked a legitimate question about her failure to seek planning permission by two journalists from The Ditch who called at her constituency office. Absolutely nothing wrong with that. Was her response ("f**k off and leave me alone") a presidential one? Or the response of what 'Banks of the Bann' might call an "ignoramus"?

It sounds like the response of an ignoramus to me. Anything else?

Yes....how come, if language matters so much to you when it come to potential presidential candidates, you've never mentioned it?

[Banks of the Bann]

What about a potential president (the current front runners in fact, who tells a journalist asking difficult questions to "f**k off and leave me alone"? Would that candidate be suitable for the office? Or would she also be too much of "a total ignoramus"?

Depends on when she was asked to be honest. If it was at a press conference then it wouldn't be okay but if the journalist ambushed her out of work or at her home she's more than entitled to tell them to f**k off.

She was asked a legitimate question about her failure to seek planning permission by two journalists from The Ditch who called at her constituency office. Absolutely nothing wrong with that. Was her response ("f**k off and leave me alone") a presidential one? Or the response of what 'Banks of the Bann' might call an "ignoramus"?

It sounds like the response of an ignoramus to me. Anything else?

Yes....how come, if language matters so much to you when it come to potential presidential candidates, you've never mentioned it?

I wasn't aware of it.

Thanks for bringing it to my attention.

[Snapchap]

What about a potential president (the current front runners in fact, who tells a journalist asking difficult questions to "f**k off and leave me alone"? Would that candidate be suitable for the office? Or would she also be too much of "a total ignoramus"?

Depends on when she was asked to be honest. If it was at a press conference then it wouldn't be okay but if the journalist ambushed her out of work or at her home she's more than entitled to tell them to f**k off.

She was asked a legitimate question about her failure to seek planning permission by two journalists from The Ditch who called at her constituency office. Absolutely nothing wrong with that. Was her response ("f**k off and leave me alone") a presidential one? Or the response of what 'Banks of the Bann' might call an "ignoramus"?

It sounds like the response of an ignoramus to me. Anything else?

Yes....how come, if language matters so much to you when it come to potential presidential candidates, you've never mentioned it?

I wasn't aware of it.

Thanks for bringing it to my attention.

No problem at all. No doubt you'll be as obsessive about this now as you are about Catherine Connolly's language.

[Banks of the Bann]

Well first off I'm not obsessive, it was someone else who brought it up.

As for your comparison, apples and pears as usual to try to deflect.

If Humphries tells an interviewer to f**k off every time she does an interview and manages to insult a country of 40M in the process, while expecting to be the highest diplomat for Ireland, then yeah perhaps I'd accept your comparison.

As it was, she came across as an ignoramus and hurt the feewings of two journalists. If there was a pattern of this type of behaviour, I would definitely say she is unfit for the office.

[Banks of the Bann]

Even though I take serious issue with some of Michael D's virtual pro-Russian lefty values, I'd give him a 10/10 in his role as president, he's cultured, has personality, intelligence, character and a vibrant articulation. By comparison this trio of candidates, from a presidential perspective, are placed somewhere between barnacles and limpets.

Such as?

I think Catherine Connolly is very much similar in many ways to Higgins. I totally disagree with the ascertain that being anti war is pro Russian, having concerns with having another arms race etc. is not pro Russian.

Connolly and Higgins have long standing records taking anti war stances and anti IMC stances long before Russias invasion of Ukraine. They are consistent in their views, unlike others.

Agreed. As long as they call out both American and Russias war mongering then I've no issue.

it's not limited to Russia and America, I haven't seen any comments that deny the rights of the Ukrainians or others to defend themselves. not enough efforts were made to prevent or stop this invasion imo (notwithstanding Putin could/can/has ignored efforts). The Ukrainians have been let down by everyone.

Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014. Nothing was done about it then. Weakness.

Weakness that provoked Russia.

Germany continued their path of economic cooperation and friendship towards Russia.

Perhaps Connolly et al should direct their ire to the source of the current arms race, I.e. Russia instead of prattling about NATO and the 'Military Industrial Complex'.

Btw, Trump tried the tankie approach these past 6 months. (Peace at any cost) How did that work out? Oh yeah, more drones, more rockets, more dead Ukrainian civilians.

Weakness as before, provoked Russia.

Connolly is incapable of condemning Russia without going off course and condemning the west. Despite the fact that not a single one of Russia's lies about their reason for going to war stand up to any scrutiny. It's in her tankie DNA, she can't help herself.

[Snapchap]

Even though I take serious issue with some of Michael D's virtual pro-Russian lefty values, I'd give him a 10/10 in his role as president, he's cultured, has personality, intelligence, character and a vibrant articulation. By comparison this trio of candidates, from a presidential perspective, are placed somewhere between barnacles and limpets.

Such as?

I think Catherine Connolly is very much similar in many ways to Higgins. I totally disagree with the ascertain that being anti war is pro Russian, having concerns with having another arms race etc. is not pro Russian.

Connolly and Higgins have long standing records taking anti war stances and anti IMC stances long before Russias invasion of Ukraine. They are consistent in their views, unlike others.

Agreed. As long as they call out both American and Russias war mongering then I've no issue.

it's not limited to Russia and America, I haven't seen any comments that deny the rights of the Ukrainians or others to defend themselves. not enough efforts were made to prevent or stop this invasion imo (notwithstanding Putin could/can/has ignored efforts). The Ukrainians have been let down by everyone.

Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014. Nothing was done about it then. Weakness.

Weakness that provoked Russia.

Germany continued their path of economic cooperation and friendship towards Russia.

Perhaps Connolly et al should direct their ire to the source of the current arms race, I.e. Russia instead of prattling about NATO and the 'Military Industrial Complex'.

Btw, Trump tried the tankie approach these past 6 months. (Peace at any cost) How did that work out? Oh yeah, more drones, more rockets, more dead Ukrainian civilians.

Weakness as before, provoked Russia.

Connolly is incapable of condemning Russia without going off course and condemning the west. Despite the fact that not a single one of Russia's lies about their reason for going to war stand up to any scrutiny. It's in her tankie DNA, she can't help herself.

Why shouldn't she focus her at the west? What country has caused more death around the world since WW2 than the USA?

[Dag Dog]

Even though I take serious issue with some of Michael D's virtual pro-Russian lefty values, I'd give him a 10/10 in his role as president, he's cultured, has personality, intelligence, character and a vibrant articulation. By comparison this trio of candidates, from a presidential perspective, are placed somewhere between barnacles and limpets.

Such as?

I think Catherine Connolly is very much similar in many ways to Higgins. I totally disagree with the ascertain that being anti war is pro Russian, having concerns with having another arms race etc. is not pro Russian.

Connolly and Higgins have long standing records taking anti war stances and anti IMC stances long before Russias invasion of Ukraine. They are consistent in their views, unlike others.

Agreed. As long as they call out both American and Russias war mongering then I've no issue.

it's not limited to Russia and America, I haven't seen any comments that deny the rights of the Ukrainians or others to defend themselves. not enough efforts were made to prevent or stop this invasion imo (notwithstanding Putin could/can/has ignored efforts). The Ukrainians have been let down by everyone.

Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014. Nothing was done about it then. Weakness.

Weakness that provoked Russia.

Germany continued their path of economic cooperation and friendship towards Russia.

Perhaps Connolly et al should direct their ire to the source of the current arms race, I.e. Russia instead of prattling about NATO and the 'Military Industrial Complex'.

Btw, Trump tried the tankie approach these past 6 months. (Peace at any cost) How did that work out? Oh yeah, more drones, more rockets, more dead Ukrainian civilians.

Weakness as before, provoked Russia.

Connolly is incapable of condemning Russia without going off course and condemning the west. Despite the fact that not a single one of Russia's lies about their reason for going to war stand up to any scrutiny. It's in her tankie DNA, she can't help herself.

Why shouldn't she focus her at the west? What country has caused more death around the world since WW2 than the USA?

Amazing how Shinners find reasons to justify a state being invaded and butchered by their aggressive big dog neighbours.
Zero empathy.

[Snapchap]

Even though I take serious issue with some of Michael D's virtual pro-Russian lefty values, I'd give him a 10/10 in his role as president, he's cultured, has personality, intelligence, character and a vibrant articulation. By comparison this trio of candidates, from a presidential perspective, are placed somewhere between barnacles and limpets.

Such as?

I think Catherine Connolly is very much similar in many ways to Higgins. I totally disagree with the ascertain that being anti war is pro Russian, having concerns with having another arms race etc. is not pro Russian.

Connolly and Higgins have long standing records taking anti war stances and anti IMC stances long before Russias invasion of Ukraine. They are consistent in their views, unlike others.

Agreed. As long as they call out both American and Russias war mongering then I've no issue.

it's not limited to Russia and America, I haven't seen any comments that deny the rights of the Ukrainians or others to defend themselves. not enough efforts were made to prevent or stop this invasion imo (notwithstanding Putin could/can/has ignored efforts). The Ukrainians have been let down by everyone.

Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014. Nothing was done about it then. Weakness.

Weakness that provoked Russia.

Germany continued their path of economic cooperation and friendship towards Russia.

Perhaps Connolly et al should direct their ire to the source of the current arms race, I.e. Russia instead of prattling about NATO and the 'Military Industrial Complex'.

Btw, Trump tried the tankie approach these past 6 months. (Peace at any cost) How did that work out? Oh yeah, more drones, more rockets, more dead Ukrainian civilians.

Weakness as before, provoked Russia.

Connolly is incapable of condemning Russia without going off course and condemning the west. Despite the fact that not a single one of Russia's lies about their reason for going to war stand up to any scrutiny. It's in her tankie DNA, she can't help herself.

Why shouldn't she focus her at the west? What country has caused more death around the world since WW2 than the USA?

Amazing how Shinners find reasons to justify a state being invaded and butchered by their aggressive big dog neighbours.
Zero empathy.

1. Haven't voted for SF since they supped champagne with Genocide Joe.
2. If you understood my comment, you'd get my point that I do object to states/people being invaded/butchered by colonial powers. The point is that the biggest culprit in this regard (the USA) ought to be the one to get most of the criticism? No?

[Banks of the Bann]

Why would she focus on the west when discussing Ukraine, which was invaded by Russia?

She even did it on the anniversary of the invasion.

Of course, the reason she does it is because she is a tankie and can't help herself.

She has ample opportunity to stick it to the US and the west and she does so.

But can she criticise Russia and leave it at that? Not a chance.

[Dag Dog]

Always Nato, the EU and America. Never Russia.

Here's Kremlin Catherine defending the Salisbury attack by Russia.
https://x.com/TullMcAdoo/status/1974153479179686379?s=19

[armaghniac]

Even though I take serious issue with some of Michael D's virtual pro-Russian lefty values, I'd give him a 10/10 in his role as president, he's cultured, has personality, intelligence, character and a vibrant articulation. By comparison this trio of candidates, from a presidential perspective, are placed somewhere between barnacles and limpets.

Such as?

I think Catherine Connolly is very much similar in many ways to Higgins. I totally disagree with the ascertain that being anti war is pro Russian, having concerns with having another arms race etc. is not pro Russian.

Connolly and Higgins have long standing records taking anti war stances and anti IMC stances long before Russias invasion of Ukraine. They are consistent in their views, unlike others.

Agreed. As long as they call out both American and Russias war mongering then I've no issue.

it's not limited to Russia and America, I haven't seen any comments that deny the rights of the Ukrainians or others to defend themselves. not enough efforts were made to prevent or stop this invasion imo (notwithstanding Putin could/can/has ignored efforts). The Ukrainians have been let down by everyone.

Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014. Nothing was done about it then. Weakness.

Weakness that provoked Russia.

Germany continued their path of economic cooperation and friendship towards Russia.

Perhaps Connolly et al should direct their ire to the source of the current arms race, I.e. Russia instead of prattling about NATO and the 'Military Industrial Complex'.

Btw, Trump tried the tankie approach these past 6 months. (Peace at any cost) How did that work out? Oh yeah, more drones, more rockets, more dead Ukrainian civilians.

Weakness as before, provoked Russia.

Connolly is incapable of condemning Russia without going off course and condemning the west. Despite the fact that not a single one of Russia's lies about their reason for going to war stand up to any scrutiny. It's in her tankie DNA, she can't help herself.

Trump might be first order bollix, but even he realised that you cannot talk to Putin Connolly doesn't seem as able as Trump, which is pretty sad.

[Fogarty]

Always Nato, the EU and America. Never Russia.

Here's Kremlin Catherine defending the Salisbury attack by Russia.
https://x.com/TullMcAdoo/status/1974153479179686379?s=19

If she's not a tankie, then she's incredibly naïve.

[Banks of the Bann]

Always Nato, the EU and America. Never Russia.

Here's Kremlin Catherine defending the Salisbury attack by Russia.
https://x.com/TullMcAdoo/status/1974153479179686379?s=19

If she's not a tankie, then she's incredibly naïve.

She is 100% a tankie.

The 'context' of the Skripal poisoning according to Catherine Connolly is the 'building up of missiles right up to the Russian border'.

That's how she views democratically elected sovereign countries requesting to joint a defensive alliance as they feared the fate which eventually befell Georgia and then Ukraine.

Notice also how her language makes it sound like NATO was a threat to Russia and was 'building up missiles right up to the Russian border' as if preparing for some kind of attack. On nuclear armed Russia and starting WW3.

Parroting pure Russian propaganda.

The truth is poor Russia was scared it couldn't bully or invade its neighbours anymore if they joined NATO, nothing more.

It's also completely bizarre for her to use that take to try to justify the FSB rocking up in Salisbury to murder some old double agent. Desperate stuff.

[Tatler Jack]

Connolly now 5/6 favourite with PP and Gavin out to 10/1.

[Fogarty]

Gavin has been a disaster. He'll bring down Micheal Martin with him!