Would you rather: have an immoral president who knows exactly how to fix the economy and defeat ISIS, or a moral president who is inexperienced.

Posted by: TheJuniorVarsityNovice

In your definition of moral, which is true? The point of the question is to find out if we should decide who to vote for based on their morals, and less on their skill, or decide mostly based on skill. I'm excluding anything really really immoral. For the Christians, if we were in a recession would you vote for an athiest who knew how to get us out?

Vote
33 Total Votes
1

Ability and skill should take precedence over personality.

27 votes
8 comments
2

Morality/personality should take precedence over ability.

6 votes
2 comments
Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
UtherPenguin says2015-09-04T22:35:31.4744043Z
Obama should run for Prime Minister of Kenya after his term ends.
Varrack says2015-09-04T22:38:48.2014022Z
You need to define moral and immoral. If the president fixes the economy and fights ISIS, then he would be doing the right and thus would be moral.
PericIes says2015-09-04T22:40:40.5279854Z
Depends on whether or not the skilled president would actually use that skill to accomplish those things correctly. If he doesn't (due to his immorality) then he has no positive qualities at all. If he does, then his inner qualities are irrelevant.
Discipulus_Didicit says2015-09-04T23:12:51.6175641Z
There is a well known saying that goes "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." Another lesser known saying goes "Presidents don't fix economies, people fix economies."
REDtrojan says2015-09-04T23:27:05.5982383Z
You really actually need a healthy dose of both, so i'll assume in this poll you mean the extreme of both options. I rather have morality then someone with none, cause that's what dictators have.. No morality but sometimes a lot of experience or at least similar and the end up massacring people they don't like or assume as a threat to them
REDtrojan says2015-09-04T23:31:55.2920953Z
And also this country seems to like inexperienced presidents..Just look at the polls for Trump soon we also will be hiring Kanye West to lead us also
briantheliberal says2015-09-04T23:35:22.3336290Z
Biased poll.
Discipulus_Didicit says2015-09-04T23:51:14.8007280Z
What the... No. How is a poll that asks a hypothetical question biased? It's not saying either of these is good, it's asking which you think to be the lesser evil.
Diqiucun_Cunmin says2015-09-05T00:43:07.8786835Z
Smart and moral > Dumb and moral > Dumb and immoral > Smart and immoral
Diqiucun_Cunmin says2015-09-05T00:51:41.9870530Z
^Exactly what REDTrojan said.
tajshar2k says2015-09-05T01:00:28.0481414Z
Diqiucun_Cunmin I must strongly disagree. They isn't any good reason for citizen to judge a president's morals. As long as he does the job, it should be sufficient.
FrozenLichBox says2015-09-05T01:03:34.9357492Z
@Varrack Tell me, how exactly is Obama fixing the economy and fighting ISIS? Our economy is about to tank, while ISIS is stirring up the Middle East, slaughtering everyone who doesn't share their worldview, and claiming and holding massive territories...
Discipulus_Didicit says2015-09-05T01:56:45.8442940Z
@FrozenLichBox Tell me, where exactly did Varrack say anything remotely like that? I don't see anything about Obama anywhere on this poll except for the first comment by that penguin person.
Diqiucun_Cunmin says2015-09-05T02:22:37.3764398Z
@tajshar2k: How can you trust someone with power if he or she is morally bad?
Diqiucun_Cunmin says2015-09-05T02:23:12.9446678Z
There have been many very capable tyrants and dictators throughout history... I prefer to have an idiot up there than those people.
REDtrojan says2015-09-05T05:53:30.6768943Z
The job of the president is all choices, so what he sees as right and wrong is all ways a consideration right along with knowing what choices to make and not to make. Based on his personal leadership & mangment skills and etc. its not pissiable to seperate your morality from this type of job, but if you did naturaly a person with a lot of power bends towards what benefits themselves . But c'mon if after 3-4 years of serving you still think Obama is inexperienced then you must be smoking lol.
Donderpants says2015-09-05T10:31:35.7919719Z
As to your description, yes, I would be fine with voting an atheist into the presidency, in fact I'd probably be happy to do it even without a recession, provided they seemed to have the country's best interests at heart.
Huntress says2015-09-05T12:20:26.6122447Z
I don't know that it's defined well enough for me to answer. What would be immoral? If a president were to defeat ISIS and fix the economy, then that would be moral in my opinion, so what would be so bad to counter this and make the president immoral? Now if we're talking about personality, then I could care less. I'm interested in the results. As for the atheist question, if the president were a social conservative it wouldn't matter to me honestly if they were a Jew, agnostic or atheist. You can be an atheist and respect Christianity, religious freedom and the American way.
tajshar2k says2015-09-05T14:59:27.6640959Z
Diqiucun_Cunmin, Morally bad is a vague term. The job of the president is represent the countries best interests. So dealing with ISIS, and fixing the economy are what he should be focused on. If he does drugs off camera, I shouldn't care because it has nothing to do with his job. We already had an idiot for president, and he made us enter a decade long war. Ability and Skill will trump morals anyway.
Huntress says2015-09-05T23:17:14.8439968Z
Maybe Bill Clinton is a good example of this. We know he had extra martial affairs, even with an intern in the White House, but does that change your opinion of him one way or the other as a president? For me, it doesn't. He was still probably the best president since Reagan, Democrat or not.
Diqiucun_Cunmin says2015-09-06T00:49:58.3824838Z
@tajshar2k: But if he can use his power and skill to defeat ISIS and fix the economy, he can also use it to fulfill his own interests or even harm those of others. He can use it for good but also for evil. And most importantly, in Chinese we have a very common saying, 'if the upper beam is not properly placed, the lower beams will be slanted as well,' meaning that if people of a higher position do not behave themselves, their subordinates will follow suit. 'The relation between [the virtue of] superiors and inferiors is like that between the wind and the grass. The grass must bend, when the wind blows across it.' (Analects 12.19) How heads of state act directly influences how officials under his rule will act, and eventually spread to the populace. If the head of state does drugs, the stigma that surrounds drugs will weaken, and more people will be drawn into them,
ramm5555 says2015-09-07T00:38:20.8865650Z
That is a stupid question

Freebase Icon   Portions of this page are reproduced from or are modifications based on work created and shared by Google and used according to terms described in the Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution License.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.