Hypothetical Election for Fun
This is just a fun hypothetical vote for who you would want to represent you as a leader of your country.
Just for fun, not serious.
You only get 1 vote. I was going to do multi-choice but thought the idea was stupid.
Have fun
3
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
5 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.Most of the people on this list I consider to be right-wing wingnuts . I really didn't particularly care for any of the choices . However , in the end I voted Xi Jinping , just to thumb my nose at those on the right , and if nothing else counterbalance the ideology of tge majority of the other persons on the list .
Marmion
Level 6
Nov 24, 2017
1
Just wondering. Did anyone actually look at the other options or did they just vote Obama?
Because David Leyonhjelm is probably one of the best options due mainly to the fact that he wasn't a career politician. He went into government because he wanted to give back to his country, Australia. He cross checks his evidence, considers all perspectives and options, is a man of the people and is quite moderate in his views.
This was just a test to see if anyone researched all options and then made a decision. Unfortunately this doesn't seem to be the case. Also if you get offended by this then you've learnt nothing. Don't just jump to conclusions, think for yourselves and do your research.
Lancer
Level 7
Nov 22, 2017
1
If you were looking for people to research options, you shouldn't have posted it as "just for fun". A non-serious informal poll is not going to get people to invest that much time.
It was necessary to mislead people in order to find out if people actually think about their decisions in a care free environment. By calling this a serious vote it would nullify the aim of this experiment. Thus I decided that it would be best to allow each person to believe that their vote didn't matter, evidently they chose to put no thought into their decision as I suspected. This is reflective of legitimate votes, people don't treat their real votes seriously which is why both this and the real forms of democracy fail.
The map looks red because of the difference in population and gun ownership. Obama was hated by the red neck society because he was black not because he was a liberal. The republican party signed an agreement not to pass any legislation he presented. and that is not how our government is supposed to work. Compromise is what the two party system is supposed to work with. I cannot understand how individuals can vote against themselves over sound gun laws or abortion!
The people voted, democracy worked. Whatever ensues is theirs to reap, be it reward or calamity, they have chosen their leader.
Also I agree that compromise should usually be the best course of action in times of peace.
Bernie!
damonca
Level 5
Nov 22, 2017
2
Yeah!
I was trying to include leaders from other countries to see if people would research the topics. But I would say that Bernie would've probably been a better moral choice for the next US president however now that Trump is in I think America might be able to start bringing itself back from the brink.
always Barack Obama, he opened a lot of options for the gay and trans community and then trump just destroyed all his work(and he's also lifted the ivory ban, that was in place for a reason)
alistair
Level 4
Nov 22, 2017
2
You know it's funny. Obama apparently did great things for LGBT people but he also allowed hundreds of thousands of Islamic extremist migrants into the USA who are completely against LGBT people. This just goes to show that he was a "popular" president and not an "intelligent" person. He had very little foresight, he did what was considered popular at the time just so he could get votes. He will never admit it but that's the kind of president that he was.
I have nothing against the LGBT community as long as they keep to themselves. But when they try to get legislation into schools to teach children as young as 6 about LGBT's before they even understand the concept of gender then I get pissed off. That does the same thing as religion, corrupts young minds. We are bringing sexual education to younger and younger children which is bad for society as a whole. There is an order to these things.
how does letting anti-LGBT people into a country alongside current anti-LGBT people which increases the number of anti-LGBT people and then encouraging LGBT people with legislation giving them equal rights equal anything but hypocrisy?
He apparently opened a lot of options for LGBT but he let anti-LGBT people into the country en masse. His moral compass has rotated 180 so to speak. Someone who bends to the whims of the masses makes a terrible leader.
Obama was essentially useless.
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
Share this post
Categories
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.