• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Should obesity matter in judging a politician?

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
I think that the folks taking offense to what Charles is saying look favorably upon Christie.

Given that Christie is a republican and most of the people disagreeing with Charles in this thread are lefties, I find that hard to shallow. I'd say it's more likely they just don't think his weight is an issue, even if they may disagree with him most of the time.
 
Someone on another forum made a very good point that I hadn't even really touched upon. Christie isn't just a very obese politician. He's a very obese Republican politician. A party that makes a habit of preaching to others about "personal responsibility". A party where many believe the poor deserve to be poor because they don't work hard enough. A party where many believe that gays should just suppress their sexuality.

We're talking about a man who said this:



Shouldn't his own standard also be applied to him?

Apparently poor people are only poor because they don't work hard enough, but he needs surgery to drop a few pounds.

Interesting point. Charles is saying that as a republican, Christie would hold the poor responsible for their plight. He's having none of excuses about how difficult it is to overcome that situation. So the argument goes, Christie himself shouldn't be given a free pass because of the difficulty of overcoming obesity. He's 100% responsible for his plight the way poor people are for there's.

Doesn't convince me that his weight is a factor of any real significance in evaluating him as a candidate, but it's an interesting point.
 
It honestly does give me pause.

Everyone has faults.

Not all fat people have the same problems.

However, I have fought weight gain most of my life (as most adults have to varying degrees) and it is the result of continual small failings. Failing to make the right choice in a given meal, failing to say no to the second helping. Lots of tiny little pieces of fail add up to become a mountainous human.

Christie has shown that in this part of his life he is out of control. He is not able to live his life responsibly as far as food is concerned. He certainly was always aware of this and knows that he has failed.

So, does it make him worse? It does. However, like I said everybody fails in various ways and if to-date his leadership has been strong then despite his weight being his failing on his sleeve for all to say (and another person's may be pedophila, which they can hide more easily but is also a personal failing) I would be willing to give it a pass.

=============

In other words, "He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone"
 
I probably wouldn't vote for Christie solely because he's fat. Fat people make bad choices and people don't change. Even if he loses weight, especially doing it via surgery, he is still fat.
 
I probably wouldn't vote for Christie solely because he's fat. Fat people make bad choices and people don't change. Even if he loses weight, especially doing it via surgery, he is still fat.

This actually is an example of plain old prejudice, and doesn't add anything to the discussion.
 
Bill Maher - 'liberal' talk show host - has a form of bigotry he's fine with - weight.

On his show last Friday - and it's not the first time he's done this kind of thing - he called Chris Christy (double quotes since I think this is exact):

"a fat slob who can't stop eating unless he puts a tourniquet on his stomach".

Amazing the level of judgement by people who can't point to anything Christy is bad at as governor over weight. It's called 'the last acceptable bigotry' for a reason.

I said some of Charles' statements I found offensive; Maher is clearly much worse. Of course he called his old show 'politically incorrect', since it's ok for him.

I don't mind people who have the view posted above participating in the discussion - he seemed to say it about as non-offensively as he can.

It's good to let him talk and then respond.

I'd tell him what I've said to others - he can just read my posts - and clearly again his position is well beyond Charles' position.

I think Charles gives it too much weight, no pun intended, but he places it 'well below cheating', while the person above would base a vote on it.

It shows the person cares way too much about it - he didn't articulate any rational reason why it should matter the way it does for him, other than uninformed assumptions he makes.

But that's a big purpose of this forum IMO, to take a person who feels that way and votes that way, and ask them to back it up, to get informed, to think about it - and improve.

Would he really vote for someone he disagrees on policies with over someone he agrees with but who is morbidly obese?

If so that's his right but it's his right to make a mistake. To be pretty disgraceful as a citizen in my opinion in addition to just the immorality of bigotry.

But again let's put this back in context as well - it's not the only 'irrational' issue. A lot of voters care about various types of physical appearance in who they vote for.

Not all, we have some ugly and good politicians, but John Kennedy's and many other politicians' looks did not hurt them getting elected.

Weight is part of that - but it has its own prejudices in addition to 'good looks'.

Today, I still boggle at how often television shows avoid any fat characters unless it's a very negative stereotype, almost always munching on screen.

Quick, who's one tv show star that's morbidly obese not named 'Rosanne'? Even very obese?

Now, the UK has done it a bit - there's a show called 'Cracker' with an overweight (and unhealthy, over-drinking, over-smoking slob who is pretty rude), but his weight is 'accepted'.

You might find a tiny bit of exceptions on US TV but I can't think of any others off the top of my head, and Roseanne took plenty of grief.

It's one of those things, if you keep your eyes open for it - watch the next few heavy people on TV shows - munch, bag of chips, ice cream, munch munch, negative things.

They'll often have that overweight person say something idiotic for the thin people to correct and such.
 
Last edited:
well, you exactly don't want to elect a guy who's potentially going to have a heart attack any minute.

but would i vote for him even if he didn't slim down? quite possibly. i think his no-bullshit attitude is what we need in a lot of instances. unless there were a better independent candidate, i think he'd actually get my vote despite being in one of the two big parties (i generally vote independent, since I think both D's and R's are two sides of the same coin).
 
I was joking... thus the 😉

I mostly agree with you on how overweight people are portrayed in society. I can think of a few overweight actors who were respected as actors and not just because they were fat, but not many.

But that's the entertainment industry. How many top tier actors or actresses have unattractive faces either?
 
This actually is an example of plain old prejudice, and doesn't add anything to the discussion.

"Should obesity matter in judging a politician?"

Fairly or not, many people do judge others solely based on their looks. Many however don't admit it outloud. I knew a woman who could not listen to Pavarotti because he was so fat. While many wouldn't use overweight as an issue when voting, some will. And, yes, it is prejudice just as those who use color when deciding for whom to vote. Is there a name for the 'Bradley affect' when fat is involved?

As for the personal responsibility issue, the surgery is a means of taking off his weight that is gaining wider acceptance - and he decided to go that route. That could not have been an easy decision, but Christie made it and it's been reported that he has already lost 40 pounds. Does whether the weight is lost 'naturally' or with the help of a surgeon (or personal trainer or Jenny Craig) really matter? He's taken responsibility and has done something about it.
 
Back
Top