Here is a thought experiment where I have "cherry-picked" certain facts from certain past leaders. This experiment is an attempt to prove how "Cherry-Picking" the facts can affect the outcome of a vote, or anything else for that matter, especially if ALL facts are not used. Furthermore, just by saying this is a "cherry-picking" experiment will also affect the outcome.
However, I would like for everyone who is going to place a vote to seriously think about who you would vote for by using only the four facts as listed for each candidate. Furthermore, this is a "blind" voting where you do not know the name nor the face of each candidate.
Additionally, I would like for all to refrain from just posting a bunch of comments unless you are also actually placing a vote. If you wish to make comments, then "Please" make the first line your vote, then follow with a blank line, then follow with comments. Thanks.
I shall leave this up for a week. Maybe two weeks. Then I shall reveal who the candidates are.
Now on to the candidates:
- Drinks 8 to 10 martinis a day.
- Has two wives.
- Smokes all the time.
- Seeks advice from astrologists.
- Was removed from office twice.
- Sleeps until noon.
- Was into opium in college.
- Drinks a bottle of whiskey each day.
- Is a vegetarian.
- Does not smoke, or drink alcohol.
- Never cheated on his wife.
- Has several war medals.
Remember, vote for whom you think is best just by the listed facts.
Thanks, for your time.
P.S.- My posting is going to be limited for quite some time. Got back from work on Thursday and later in the afternoon, I suffered a major gall bladder attack. Thus, I need to take it very easy for the next two weeks. Sorry for anyone missing me, as if anyone did. Richard.
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
Nice try, but I'm not voting for Hitler.
I think some of us are on to you, Sir.
This is old. To be fair though, Hitler never cheated on his wife because they blew their brains out on the honeymoon. Also, Hitler enjoyed sausages, so he wasn't a vegetarian, he just didn't frequent meat. The other two are Franklin Roosevelt and Eisenhower, if I remember correctly. Not certain which is which.
Probably not the venue to try this old chestnut. The intellectual calibre here is more like the professors smoking room at an Oxford college than a high school fraternity.
I'm with Jared...but the first one is the great Roosevelt? Would not vote for Hitler thanks.
The only one with any real experience.
This is posted with a group of skeptics. Do you seriously think they do not smell the trap.
IMO with my own knowledge of history (and many others in this forum) this barely qualifies as a trap. As soon as I read the question, number 2 jumped out at me as Churchill, and the other two quickly fell in line.
Is this poll misleading or dishonest?
On a personal note Richard, I suffered gall bladder attacks, I fully understand the level of pain and inconvenience. I had mine removed in a morning procedure, and walked out of the hospital four hours later.
I wish you a speedy recovery.
If I want to cherry pick our leader I would stick with the current one. Maraschino cherry! Artificially colored/ artificially flavored bleached out version of some thing potentially good. Causes cancer!
I'd vote for No. 2, though the provenance of the opium legend is doubtful.
What profiles like these show is that most world leaders are certifiable in one way or another. What does that tell us about the people who voted for them?
Profile 3 should include "was injured trying to get a blow-job from a goat"
Three thousand years ago, Roosevelt, Churchill, and Hitler would all have ended up as tribal deities, with Hitler probably morphing into Jehovah the Genocide.
The other issue with this suggestion is that none of these details really matter when it comes to a leader. John Kennedy was certainly not a moral paragon by any means, but he did a decent job. When it comes to cherry picking the details, however, I live by the adage that if you search for shit in the sewer, you'll find it. Every given politician has good merits that don't mean a god damn thing like these. And every politician has some incriminating details that also don't mean shit. The measure of a good politician is in his policy, not his personal transgressions against meaningless social standards.
Candidate 2, please.
Note: I cast my vote befire reading any of the other's replies.
Edit to add: (Just finished reviewing the other rrplies.) Yeah, vegetarians do not impress me.
Arakish, a speedy recovery to you, good sir. Try not to stay gone too long. Your little tree always brightens up the place.