Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
elected president since he is fat but she also asked Hillary "whats with your hair?" LOL
So can Hillary be elected since she is older and not that attractive anymore. Yes, I am sexist but the presidential election is more of a beauty contest anymore than anything else, so my answer to both is NO. Neither can be elected with their looks.
IMO the American people don't understand that much about politics so it has become a beauty contest. Sad.
Your opinion would be reserved for the youth and minorities who voted for Obama. Pandering to groups seems to be the strategy candidates use to get votes, it doesn't matter what they look like.
I like Christie because he speaks his mind and probably comes closer to the truth than most. I also don't think he is a panderer, and because of that, he will be judged by his "looks", rather than what he can do for the country, not for each "group".
I don't think Obama was elected and re-elected because he was judged to be handsome (which IMO he is not - he's definitely no Shemar Moore). If it was a contest about looks - Romney would have won.
[quote=janelle144;27334596]elected president since he is fat but she also asked Hillary "whats with your hair?" LOL
So can Hillary be elected since she is older and not that attractive anymore. Yes, I am sexist but the presidential election is more of a beauty contest anymore than anything else, so my answer to both is NO. Neither can be elected with their looks.
No one except a younger attractive person. No?[/quote]
The OP has a point to a certain degree, but if Christie and Hillary ran against each other then that argument goes out the window. I mean you would have a fat guy running against a really old woman well past her prime. You always have the lean factor where a person would not consider a candidate because their ideology is way too different and they belong to the other party.
Barbara Walters specials are aimed at the lowest common denominator of intelligence. It's aimed at people who pore over People or Us Magazines. It's aimed at superficial people who obsess over celebrities. Consequently, such programs avoid substance.
Your opinion would be reserved for the youth and minorities who voted for Obama. Pandering to groups seems to be the strategy candidates use to get votes, it doesn't matter what they look like.
I like Christie because he speaks his mind and probably comes closer to the truth than most. I also don't think he is a panderer, and because of that, he will be judged by his "looks", rather than what he can do for the country, not for each "group".
I don't think Obama was elected and re-elected because he was judged to be handsome (which IMO he is not - he's definitely no Shemar Moore). If it was a contest about looks - Romney would have won.
Speaking of "groups," the viewership of Barbara Walters specials is primarily dumb, married white broads, many/most of whom voted for the Mitt. The kind who concurred that Sarah Palin was one of the most "fascinating" people of 2008.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
