Has someone pulled down Yes posters?

deadlybuzzman

Coming out of town this evening struck me that I could only see No Posters along the road.
Maybe I'm raving but I could've swore I see plenty of yes posters up around carraroe until today.
Did anyone else notice this?

whatswhat

Prior to Monday this week, all I seemed to see myself was YES posters. Then I listened to the debate on Ocean on Monday and there were a few accusations flying around about the YES camp pulling the NO camps posters down? Jesus it might have been the other way around? Well anyway, since then, I have seen more NO than YES. So I think you're right DB.

How have we all voted then? I voted Yes, and No to the presidential referendum.

Kettleson

Same as Zorro. The way Irish politics works, I reckon they should be raising the Presidential age way not lowering it.

I predict Sligo votes NO. Donegal has the highest NO vote in the country but a resounding YES. And I'll be smiling. It would cap of a great week for Ireland.

Kettleson

Did McSharry ever put his stall out on the referendum? Or was the neck kept well in?

T-Bird

deadlybuzzman wrote: »

Coming out of town this evening struck me that I could only see No Posters along the road.
Maybe I'm raving but I could've swore I see plenty of yes posters up around carraroe until today.
Did anyone else notice this?

Yup noticed that going through town as well this evening. No signs scattered everywhere and not a single yes sign.

red sean

Kettleson wrote: »

Did McSharry ever put his stall out on the referendum? Or was the neck kept well in?

Nope. Too many potential votes to be lost by declaring his hand methinks.
And he'll need all the votes he can get. We haven't forgotten!

Mint Sauce

Tá and Níl.

JTL

Yes and yes.

thebuzz

Yes and yes, if people voted yes to marriage for equality reasons then there's no reason for them to have voted no in the Presidential one. Sometimes I wonder about the Irish electorate...they don't make sense.

thebuzz

thebuzz wrote: »

Yes and yes, if people voted yes to marriage for equality reasons then there's no reason for them to have voted no in the Presidential one. Sometimes I wonder about the Irish electorate...they don't make sense.

Why would we want a 21 year old president?

FloatingVoter

zorro2566 wrote: »

Why would we want a 21 year old president?

....a 34 year old president is also impossible. We've all heard the Jedward / One direction jokes but bear in mind Michael Collins was 32 when he was killed. Plenty of other founders of the state were below the 35 mark.

Celly Smunt

FloatingVoter wrote: »

....a 34 year old president is also impossible. We've all heard the Jedward / One direction jokes but bear in mind Michael Collins was 32 when he was killed. Plenty of other founders of the state were below the 35 mark.

13 year olds were also fighting on the frontline back then but times have changed. Education has suprisingly pushed maturity back a good few years in comparison to the 1920's, it could be argued that a 24 year old back then would be seen as what we would perceive to be a 35 year old now.

FloatingVoter

Celly Smunt wrote: »

13 year olds were also fighting on the frontline back then but times have changed. Education has suprisingly pushed maturity back a good few years in comparison to the 1920's, it could be argued that a 24 year old back then would be seen as what we would perceive to be a 35 year old now.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you. Like a lot of people, I didn't give a toss about that referendum and voted Yes in full knowledge it was doomed to lose. It's just everyone I spoke to about it had the same "do you want to see Jedward in the Aras" response.
There is still a world of difference and experience between your average 21 year old and your average 34 year old. And to paraphrase Pulp Fiction, we'd need to be talking one exceptional motherf'in 34 year old.

3rdDegree

I voted yes and yes. I don't agree with having a president under 35, but I think we'll never elect one that young anyway. My reason for voting yes was I remembered all the fun Dana gave us ("someone tried to assassinate me" etc) and thought we could have great fun if some kid ran for office.

I must confess, now that I've sobered up, I think I may have wasted my vote...

But at least I voted correctly for the important one. If truth be told, I think they should have used the day to get rid of that blasphemy crap from the constitution instead of that silly presidential thing...

thebuzz

zorro2566 wrote: »

Why would we want a 21 year old president?

So because someone is 21 they couldn't possibly be a good President? Not all 21 year olds are immature, you could have had an excellent candidate at 21, you can't generalise all 21-35 year olds as not being good enough for President.

People seemed to base their vote on their own children or young people they knew saying 'ara sure now, could you imagine him being President'. That's not what it was about, if you didn't want the 21 year old as President it was only a matter of not voting for them during the election but by rejecting this referendum people have discriminated against people based on age (that's no worse than discriminating on sexual orientation), but for some reason that seems to be acceptable?!?

red sean

The job of President is not like that of a politician. It is a diplomatic position. It requires a lot of life experience as well as academic competance.
Life experience can only be achieved over time. I would think the optimum age for a President is 45-60 (although our current man is coping admirably).

Ageism exists all around us whether we like it or not. There are unnecessary lower and upper age limits applied to loads of job descriptions.
I know an IT engineer who is 60. He was told at an interview that he was too old to fit the company profile. Qualifications meant zilch.

T-Bird

If he was told that then he has a case for discrimination....

red sean

T-Bird wrote: »

If he was told that then he has a case for discrimination....

He got legal advice as far as I know but I don't know the outcome, will have to ask.
I had forgotten all about it until I quoted that post.

Henlars67

I don't get how so many people could vote to end one form of discrimination, while at the same time voting to retain another.

The age should actually be lowered to 18. You're either an adult or you're a minor.

I'd never vote for somebody that young to be president, however they should be allowed to seek a nomination if they so wish.

The nomination process itself is quite restrictive, as shown by how difficult it was for Norris, and to a lesser extent McGuinness, to get one the last time.

The nomination process is more than capable of keeping thoroughly unsuitable candidates out of the election.

Buford T Justice

Henlars67 wrote: »

I don't get how so many people could vote to end one form of discrimination, while at the same time voting to retain another.

The age should actually be lowered to 18. You're either an adult or you're a minor.

Then by the same token, is it classed as discrimination that you have to be over the age of 21 to apply for and hold a HGV EC licence?
Or why can you hold a licence for an agricultural vehicle at 16 but not a road going vehicle until 18?

The presidential vote was a completely pointless referendum topic imo. Just because Jedward would be elligible to run as a presidential candidate doesn't mean the electorate would vote for them. Look at the last election campaign, there wasn't one candidate under the age of 50. In fairness I don't see anyone in their twenties running, and even if they do getting elected is quite another matter.

Mint Sauce

Buford T Justice wrote: »

Then by the same token, is it classed as discrimination that you have to be over the age of 21 to apply for and hold a HGV EC licence?
Or why can you hold a licence for an agricultural vehicle at 16 but not a road going vehicle until 18?

The presidential vote was a completely pointless referendum topic imo. Just because Jedward would be elligible to run as a presidential candidate doesn't mean the electorate would vote for them. Look at the last election campaign, there wasn't one candidate under the age of 50. In fairness I don't see anyone in their twenties running, and even if they do getting elected is quite another matter.

Totally pointness, there was no side coming out to support or fight it. In fairness I would have pushed it back to 40+.

Even though its a mostly cerimonal position, if a 21 year old did get the nomination, and some how got elected, could you see the French taking him/her seriously at Lansdowne Rd? Would probably think they were the team mascot. Or if they were on a trade or PR mission to the middle east, would probably be laughed out of the place. The president needs a certain air or responsibility and maturity, which most 20 somethings, and even allot of 30 somethings dont have at that level.

As for the posters coming down, should they not already be so at this point, prehaps they are doing the campaigners a favour.