NationStates Jolt Archive

The scenario is:

Election for prime minister of a small country. Two main candidates:
- A competent, homossexual one
- An incompetent, heterossexual one.

The competent one of course.

The competent one of course.
Like hell.

If it pleases you guys to know, I, and my country, will likely have to make that choice for real. :p

So the straight guy is a womenizing alcholic white Nazi? ;)

I wouldn't want no Gay leader. Just think how sissy-like the official residence would look, and I don't want my leader to have to go to the hospital for anal lessions!

So the straight guy is a womenizing alcholic white Nazi? ;)


No, he is an incompetent womanizing disgracefully arrogant, which in four months fucked up so much that the president had to sack him.

If it pleases you guys to know, I, and my country, will likely have to make that choice for real. :p

What country?

And is the competent/incompetent distinction really that clear?

Generally, there are people on both sides who believe their candidate is the more competent one and the opponent is the less competent one.

Seriously though, most "homophobes wouldn't be happy. I think you might see some attempts at taking their life!

If it pleases you guys to know, I, and my country, will likely have to make that choice for real. :p
What country do you live in? Denmark?

Anyway, it really doesn't matter to me if my leader is gay, as long as he is competent at his job.

Definitely competency. I'm one of those who wouldn't really give a two hoot about my leaders sexual preference, as long as he does a good job in the office.

Which one looks better?

Which one looks better?
*Obviously* the gay one!
:p

The scenario is:

Election for prime minister of a small country. Two main candidates:
- A competent, homossexual one
- An incompetent, heterossexual one.

As with many "out" groups, gays will realize they are finally fully accepted when people start responding to this slightly altered poll by choosing the second option:

"Election for prime minister of a nation. Two main candidates:

- An incompetent, homosexual one.
- A competent, heterosexual one."

Think about it.

The incompetent one. Citizens and leaders are used to dealing with incompenence. Having a gay Prime Minister would cause much more uproar and trouble than having an incompetent one. Choose the option that would disrupt the least, I'd say. That way, even if you don't think it's ideal, but you can get something done at least.

The Country is Portugal, and even some of the senior members of the Incompetent candidate's party dont support him.

Depends on how they stand on issues....

If it's simply a matter of competency, then there is no debate in my view. The gay candidate gets my vote.

Competent Homosexual of course - why vote for somebody you know is incompetent...??

The competent one, of course. Why do I care about his sexual preference, as long as he runs the country well?

The scenario is:

Election for prime minister of a small country. Two main candidates:
- A competent, homossexual one
- An incompetent, heterossexual one.



Sexual orientation aside, if your leader is incompetent then the country is likely to fall. My vote is for the Competent homosexual.

sadly in politics .. preception is everything.. if the state of affairs is what it is today.. i would have to go for the heterosexual (if we are talking about the presidency) because the fool heterosexual can always be a figure head you know.. (not unheard of) not to mention the fact that the president (atleast in the US) is largely powerless outside of foregin affairs, and even then if he is a fool there is always someone behind him pulling the strings.

While i would prefer the competiance of the homosexual, if he is precieved as weak, which maybe the case in this day and age .. (seeing how the presidents primary power is foregin affairs) weather rightly so or not, the preception of weakness could be dramatic for the citizenry