Mitt Romney Gargles Nutsacks

[Napoléon]

Original point:

Personally, I'd prefer someone who thinks logically with no emotion.

You'll notice two things. One, I prefaced the statement with the word personally which creates a contextual and subjective conversation.

Squirming already?

Two, to be with character requires emotion, which I stated I would prefer none to exist.

And you are correct because? You say so? That's not how this works. You can have good character but still go about your job in a professional and 'emotionless' if you want to call it that, manner.

As to how providing a positive outcome is relevant to this point, because of its subjective nature as a statement I am correct unto myself.

Say whaaaaat? You are right, because you are right? Is that what you're saying? Jeeeez.

To state otherwise would create a situation where subjective statements are pitted against each other in an ineffective manner - thus making the statement of contradiction unreasonable (there is no right answer in subjective conversation).

OK, this I get. However I don't think that it is subjective what we are discussing here.
But hey, that's my subjective opinion, so where does that leave us?

In relation to the conversation objectively, this whole subjective conversation proves my original point. To use reason and logic to come to an objective answer is much more efficient than utilizing emotions while attempting to be rational.

Hmm, misinterpreting what I was doing. I was not using emotions whilst attempting to be rational, I was being rational and logical AND reasonable in a way in which you perceived to be emotional. Your point is mute.

I did not say that character and rationality are incompatible, simply inefficient in the realm of politics.

Seemed that way to me

As to your preference, we each are entitled to our own, I'm not going to say your wrong in an objective sense simply because I am pitting a subjective statement against another. If you wish to discuss the objective answer to this then simply say so. By adding emotion into a logical discussion it only retards the progress.

You retarded the progress by choosing to make a point of it.

Someone who is purely logical can only produce logic, while someone who is purely emotional can purely produce irrationality. To mix both is nice, but not effective - especially in objectively running a government.

Says who? Again you're just asserting this based on your own opinion. Well guess what, THAT is subjective.

---

If politics is an emotionless game then what is it? From where I am sitting, it is all about emotion.

Damnit, said what I couldn't in so few words