• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ceteris Paribus

Who would you vote for?

  • Total voters
    26
Jerry

Jerry

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2006
Messages
51,123
Reaction score
15,259
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Suppose you are voting in a primary.

Suppose your party has 2 candidates who are equally qualified in every way.

Suppose you agree with each candidate’s politics and ideals, that those politics and ideals are the same between the 2 candidates.

Suppose one is a man, the other is a woman.

Who would you vote for?
 
Jerry said:
Suppose you are voting in a primary.

Suppose that your party has 2 candidates who are equally qualified in every way.

Suppose that you agree with each candidate’s politics and ideals, that those politics and ideals are the same between the 2 candidates.

Suppose one is a man, the other is a woman.

Who would you vote for?
Click to expand...

At this time in history, the man.

We don't need the distractions of gender novelty taking our attentions further from the important, urgent issues of our time.
 
bhkad said:
At this time in history, the man.

We don't need the distractions of gender novelty taking our attentions further from the important, urgent issues of our time.
Click to expand...

......Hi!....welcome to the 21st century. Where women are now allowed in our military, where they fight terrorism on all fronts and have the right to vote. Your sexist brain may now explode. Goodnight.

------------------

Yeah I'd vote for whomever will piss my mother in law off the most. At this moment it looks like Kucinich...she calls him 'The Rat'. Ah I love wasting what little power I have in this democracy.
 
Hatuey said:
......Hi!....welcome to the 21st century. Where women are now allowed in our military, where they fight terrorism on all fronts and have the right to vote. Your sexist brain may now explode. Goodnight.
Click to expand...

You would obviously choose her for the novelty.

I rest my case.
 
I would chose the candidate in the order of these criteria:

1) The one whose personality, IMO, matched best with the Presidency.
2) The one who lived closest to my state.
3) The one who was in better physical health.
 
bhkad said:
You would obviously choose her for the novelty.

I rest my case.
Click to expand...

No. I'd chose whomever I believe will make a better leader. This action is usually preceded by analyzing the issues and where they will stand on them before voting for them. Regardless of sex.
 
Hatuey said:
No. I'd chose whomever I believe will make a better leader. This action is usually preceded by analyzing the issues and where they will stand on them before voting for them. Regardless of sex.
Click to expand...

Jerry said:
Suppose you are voting in a primary.

Suppose your party has 2 candidates who are equally qualified in every way.

Suppose you agree with each candidate’s politics and ideals, that those politics and ideals are the same between the 2 candidates.

Suppose one is a man, the other is a woman.

Who would you vote for?
Click to expand...

Re-read then comment. :roll:
 
Jerry said:
Suppose you are voting in a primary.

Suppose your party has 2 candidates who are equally qualified in every way.

Suppose you agree with each candidate’s politics and ideals, that those politics and ideals are the same between the 2 candidates.

Suppose one is a man, the other is a woman.

Who would you vote for?
Click to expand...

Such a situation will never happen. There will always be a difference from one person to the next, unless their brains are exact duplicates of each other. Even then, their staff/advisors would be different.

If such a situation occurred, my probable voting parameters would be:

  • The one who had the best TV adds.......:mrgreen:
  • The one who looked nicer.
  • The one whose personality appeared best for the job.
  • In general, the candidate who I thought had the best chance of winning the election.

Basically, if there were actually two candidates who I agreed with, I would want the one with the best chance of beating the other party’s presidential candidate to be our presidential candidate. It only makes sense.

It would depend on the exact situation, taking into account many more parameters (some of which are outlined above) than you give, for me to make such a decision.
 
I think Capt'n and The Mark need to stop trying to add things which are unequal and answer the question.
 
Jerry said:
I think Capt'n and The Mark need to stop trying to add things which are unequal and answer the question.
Click to expand...

Jerry said:
Suppose you agree with each candidate’s politics and ideals, that those politics and ideals are the same between the 2 candidates.
Click to expand...

No mention of personality. No mention of proximity. No mention of physical health. You only mentioned politics and ideals. These things are independent of the things I mentioned.

I think that if you are trying to 'trap' posters into showing whether they are sexually discriminatory or have some sort of sex bias with the Presidency, you should word your OP more effectively. ;)
 
This is a simple question that people are making more difficult than needed. :roll:

If they are both exactly equal except for gender the answer for me is easy.

Men have lead this country for a few hundred years now, and where has it gotten us?

Time for women to have a chance.
It couldn't possibly get worse could it?


(please, please, please don't read any of that as an endorsement for Hillary....I'm not a Hillary supporter at all.....)
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
No mention of personality. No mention of proximity. No mention of physical health. You only mentioned politics and ideals. These things are independent of the things I mentioned.

I think that if you are trying to 'trap' posters into showing whether they are sexually discriminatory or have some sort of sex bias with the Presidency, you should word your OP more effectively. ;)
Click to expand...

Ceteris Paribus means "all things being equal". That's "all things". Nothing I say alters the meaning of cetris perabis, so I happen to leave some absure detail out, that doesn't alter the query.
 
Neither one. Even if all things were equal, they are still both politicians and probably slimy *** scumbags. If I can't have a choice between the lesser of two evils then I won't vote :)
 
Assuming both candidates are equal in every way I would choose the woman because of the jump forward it would provide our society on gender based issues. Choosing the man will give no extra benefit to the country.
 
Depends, is the woman candidate post menopausal? :2razz:

I kid, I kid.
 
galenrox said:
Cetaris paribus I would vote for the woman, as such a candidate would carry the marginal value of the advancement of women beyond a hurdle which is preposterous in the first place. That being said, this all completely hypothetical, but yeah, it's stupid there hasn't been a female president yet, and so if there are two clones of each other politically, experientially, and in all other factors which effect what kind of president one will be, absolutely I'd vote for the woman.
Click to expand...

And see that's totaly cool. People, I think, are just scared to say that they would have a preference for one gender over another.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
No mention of personality. No mention of proximity. No mention of physical health. You only mentioned politics and ideals. These things are independent of the things I mentioned.

I think that if you are trying to 'trap' posters into showing whether they are sexually discriminatory or have some sort of sex bias with the Presidency, you should word your OP more effectively. ;)
Click to expand...

I agree.

Furthermore, two identical candidates would have to also be of the same sex, because female and male brains work differently. As such, it would seem that their views would have to be at least slightly different.
 
Gibberish said:
Assuming both candidates are equal in every way I would choose the woman because of the jump forward it would provide our society on gender based issues.
Click to expand...

It could inspire young women all over the country with the dream that they to might marry the right guy and ride his coat tails to great success.
 
galenrox said:
I agree, I don't think people should be. I don't see it being at all sexist in saying it's a problem that there hasn't been a female president, considering that they constitute over half of the population and are by any objective standard at least as competent.
Click to expand...

True.

Hasn't been a female candidate that I could vote for yet, however, at least for the POTUS slot.

But you have an excellent point.

If I had to choose between two candidates which had an almost identical platform which I agreed with, had an equal chance of winning the presidential election, and one was male, the other female..... I would have to choose the female, if only because we haven't had a female president yet, and I want to see what it's like.
 
dixon76710 said:
It could inspire young women all over the country with the dream that they to might marry the right guy and ride his coat tails to great success.
Click to expand...

:confused:

What does this have to do with the discussion?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom