Well?
A resounding "yes" or a load of blank ballot papers stuffed in the boxes?
For the record I'm voting "Yes" in this one.
Yes for me, can't understand why the proposal is for 21 and not 18
I assume you are talking about the utterly pointless lowering the age of eligibility to be President? What a f**king waste of time and money.
I'm voting No in this one. I think one's perceptions of the world change between 21 and 35. That's my own opinion anyway. No word about it really, so it will be interesting to see how it pans out.
I think it's ironic how the word "Equality" is being thrown around by the Yes side in the marriage referendum, yet the other referendum is to allow someone to just run for president.
As macdanger said, if we're looking for equality, why isn't it reduced to 18? If someone runs at that age and isn't fit for office then the people will decide that. Maybe we should increase the voting age to thirty five incase people younger than that can't be trusted to make the correct decision.
Quote from: Farrandeelin on April 30, 2015, 08:30:31 PM
I'm voting No in this one. I think one's perceptions of the world change between 21 and 35. That's my own opinion anyway. No word about it really, so it will be interesting to see how it pans out.
Sure most 12 year olds could do that bloody job.
Quote from: Farrandeelin on April 30, 2015, 08:30:31 PM
I'm voting No in this one. I think one's perceptions of the world change between 21 and 35. That's my own opinion anyway. No word about it really, so it will be interesting to see how it pans out.
equality denying youthophobe
Quote from: armaghniac on April 30, 2015, 10:55:05 PM
Quote from: Farrandeelin on April 30, 2015, 08:30:31 PM
I'm voting No in this one. I think one's perceptions of the world change between 21 and 35. That's my own opinion anyway. No word about it really, so it will be interesting to see how it pans out.
equality denying youthophobe
:D
Well I'm only 27 myself so not a case of total youthophobia!
Quote from: Farrandeelin on April 30, 2015, 10:57:11 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on April 30, 2015, 10:55:05 PM
Quote from: Farrandeelin on April 30, 2015, 08:30:31 PM
I'm voting No in this one. I think one's perceptions of the world change between 21 and 35. That's my own opinion anyway. No word about it really, so it will be interesting to see how it pans out.
equality denying youthophobe
:D
Well I'm only 27 myself so not a case of total youthophobia!
Lundy!
My default position is not to change the constitution unless I'm persuaded there's a need. There is absolutely no need for 21-35 year olds to be allowed run for President. Definite NO from me.
So Shligo and that place to the West of us voting NO :(
Thank God for Roscommon to balance things by standing up for equality and progressiveness.
Justice for the U 35s!!!
The easiest way to make these decisions is to see what the Donegal polls are saying and vote the other way.
This referendum is a fairly weak attempt to get young people out to vote, to counter the grey vote factor in the other referendum.
Anyway, we have seen throughout history infant monarchs and emperors. How bad could it be?
For example here is President George Bush at a summit with the Emperor of Rarotonga:
(https://static.ijreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/bush-baby.jpeg)
Quote from: Hardy on May 01, 2015, 01:06:32 AM
The easiest way to make these decisions is to see what the Donegal polls are saying and vote the other way.
That's sound advice - keep me posted with what's going on up there! ;)
Quote from: Rossfan on April 30, 2015, 10:42:44 PM
Quote from: Farrandeelin on April 30, 2015, 08:30:31 PM
I'm voting No in this one. I think one's perceptions of the world change between 21 and 35. That's my own opinion anyway. No word about it really, so it will be interesting to see how it pans out.
Sure most 12 year olds could do that bloody job.
But would they be tall enough?
I'm in two minds on this one. I think 21 is far too young to be President, but think it unlikely that someone that young would secure a nomination nevermind win an election anyway.
Not so sure if it's an "equality" issue as there are plenty of jobs that require X years experience before taking on a senior role.
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 01, 2015, 03:26:03 PM
I'm in two minds on this one. I think 21 is far too young to be President, but think it unlikely that someone that young would secure a nomination nevermind win an election anyway.
Not so sure if it's an "equality" issue as there are plenty of jobs that require X years experience before taking on a senior role.
If there are, then an 18 year old would still probably be allowed to apply for them with the likely result that he/she would be turned down.
My point was that it's probably more about equality than the "equality" referendum that's grabbing the headlines.
Quote from: Esmarelda on May 01, 2015, 03:39:04 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 01, 2015, 03:26:03 PM
I'm in two minds on this one. I think 21 is far too young to be President, but think it unlikely that someone that young would secure a nomination nevermind win an election anyway.
Not so sure if it's an "equality" issue as there are plenty of jobs that require X years experience before taking on a senior role.
If there are, then an 18 year old would still probably be allowed to apply for them with the likely result that he/she would be turned down.
No, they would be rejected at the outset because they didn't have the required experience, if the job was important enough. They wouldn't get to interview stage.
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 01, 2015, 04:35:17 PM
Quote from: Esmarelda on May 01, 2015, 03:39:04 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 01, 2015, 03:26:03 PM
I'm in two minds on this one. I think 21 is far too young to be President, but think it unlikely that someone that young would secure a nomination nevermind win an election anyway.
Not so sure if it's an "equality" issue as there are plenty of jobs that require X years experience before taking on a senior role.
If there are, then an 18 year old would still probably be allowed to apply for them with the likely result that he/she would be turned down.
No, they would be rejected at the outset because they didn't have the required experience, if the job was important enough. They wouldn't get to interview stage.
Yes, but I assume, in that situation, they'd charge into the interview room, put their balls (or whatever women use to show.........balls) on the table, and prove their worth that way.
Quote from: Esmarelda on May 01, 2015, 05:00:17 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 01, 2015, 04:35:17 PM
Quote from: Esmarelda on May 01, 2015, 03:39:04 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 01, 2015, 03:26:03 PM
I'm in two minds on this one. I think 21 is far too young to be President, but think it unlikely that someone that young would secure a nomination nevermind win an election anyway.
Not so sure if it's an "equality" issue as there are plenty of jobs that require X years experience before taking on a senior role.
If there are, then an 18 year old would still probably be allowed to apply for them with the likely result that he/she would be turned down.
No, they would be rejected at the outset because they didn't have the required experience, if the job was important enough. They wouldn't get to interview stage.
Yes, but I assume, in that situation, they'd charge into the interview room, put their balls (or whatever women use to show.........balls) on the table, and prove their worth that way.
So, the equivalent of canvassing when you're not on the ballot paper.
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 01, 2015, 05:52:57 PM
Quote from: Esmarelda on May 01, 2015, 05:00:17 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 01, 2015, 04:35:17 PM
Quote from: Esmarelda on May 01, 2015, 03:39:04 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on May 01, 2015, 03:26:03 PM
I'm in two minds on this one. I think 21 is far too young to be President, but think it unlikely that someone that young would secure a nomination nevermind win an election anyway.
Not so sure if it's an "equality" issue as there are plenty of jobs that require X years experience before taking on a senior role.
If there are, then an 18 year old would still probably be allowed to apply for them with the likely result that he/she would be turned down.
No, they would be rejected at the outset because they didn't have the required experience, if the job was important enough. They wouldn't get to interview stage.
Yes, but I assume, in that situation, they'd charge into the interview room, put their balls (or whatever women use to show.........balls) on the table, and prove their worth that way.
So, the equivalent of canvassing when you're not on the ballot paper.
Despite the lack of smiley face, I thought my last post was obviously in jest. You make a valid point. :)
Heard an interesting point on this earlier - in 1916, three of the signatories were under 35, Dev also and of course Collins was only 33 when he died
Quote from: macdanger2 on May 10, 2015, 12:49:55 AM
Heard an interesting point on this earlier - in 1916, three of the signatories were under 35, Dev also and of course Collins was only 33 when he died
Well Collins partitioned the country and Dev started a civil war, so that's hardly a recommendation.
Quote from: armaghniac on May 10, 2015, 12:51:08 AM
Quote from: macdanger2 on May 10, 2015, 12:49:55 AM
Heard an interesting point on this earlier - in 1916, three of the signatories were under 35, Dev also and of course Collins was only 33 when he died
Well Collins partitioned the country and Dev started a civil war, so that's hardly a recommendation.
I think you'll find it was the people of ireland who voted to partition the country and Dev was not in charge of the anti-treaty military during the civil war
Quote from: macdanger2 on May 10, 2015, 01:31:44 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on May 10, 2015, 12:51:08 AM
Quote from: macdanger2 on May 10, 2015, 12:49:55 AM
Heard an interesting point on this earlier - in 1916, three of the signatories were under 35, Dev also and of course Collins was only 33 when he died
Well Collins partitioned the country and Dev started a civil war, so that's hardly a recommendation.
I think you'll find it was the people of ireland who voted to partition the country and Dev was not in charge of the anti-treaty military during the civil war
Well Dev clearly decided to ignore the vote of the people of the 26 counties in this respect.
Quote from: armaghniac on May 10, 2015, 01:36:01 AM
Quote from: macdanger2 on May 10, 2015, 01:31:44 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on May 10, 2015, 12:51:08 AM
Quote from: macdanger2 on May 10, 2015, 12:49:55 AM
Heard an interesting point on this earlier - in 1916, three of the signatories were under 35, Dev also and of course Collins was only 33 when he died
Well Collins partitioned the country and Dev started a civil war, so that's hardly a recommendation.
I think you'll find it was the people of ireland who voted to partition the country and Dev was not in charge of the anti-treaty military during the civil war
Well Dev clearly decided to ignore the vote of the people of the 26 counties in this respect.
He did. But you need to read up a little more on your history if you think he started the civil war
Regardless, I think any of those 5 men did more before they were 35 than most gaaboarders ever will and would be above average presidential candidates
Still a fair drop down to a 21 year old.
What age do you have to be to run for the Dáil?
Quote from: Esmarelda on May 10, 2015, 04:52:36 PM
What age do you have to be to run for the Dáil?
35.
But this referendum is not about age, it is about cats wanting to play golf.
Vote NO to President Niall Horan.
VOTE NO
Cos, in theory, we'd have to fund an additional 14 years of a feckin pension to a retired President.
Good point SS The likes of Dev or Childers did not cost much in pensions after their term.
Quote from: armaghniac on May 10, 2015, 01:36:01 AM
Quote from: macdanger2 on May 10, 2015, 01:31:44 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on May 10, 2015, 12:51:08 AM
Quote from: macdanger2 on May 10, 2015, 12:49:55 AM
Heard an interesting point on this earlier - in 1916, three of the signatories were under 35, Dev also and of course Collins was only 33 when he died
Well Collins partitioned the country and Dev started a civil war, so that's hardly a recommendation.
I think you'll find it was the people of ireland who voted to partition the country and Dev was not in charge of the anti-treaty military during the civil war
Well Dev clearly decided to ignore the vote of the people of the 26 counties in this respect.
The majority had no right to do wrong...