Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

There have been obese presisdents in both parties...

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU
 
WI_DEM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-27-11 03:32 PM
Original message
There have been obese presisdents in both parties...
Democrat Grover Cleveland tipped the scale at over 300 pounds:



Republican William McKinley also sported quite a gut:



Of course William Howard Taft is the all-time champ of presidential obesity:



These were essentially 19th century men who believed in limited government, cigars, good glass of bourbon and letting big business alone. So Christie would be a perfect fit for returning the country to the Laissee-faire attitudes of the last three obese presidents.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
tblue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-27-11 03:33 PM
Response to Original message
1. Oh dear. That poor critter looks like he's about to collapse.
That ox/buffalo, I mean.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SoCalDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-27-11 03:35 PM
Response to Original message
2. Since TV, appearance matters more
Before TV, many people probably never really knew what the president looked like..all they could go by was grainy photographs in papers, and the occasional glimpse if he ever showed up in your town,
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dmallind Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-27-11 04:09 PM
Response to Reply #2
7. only to shallow morons
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Angleae Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-27-11 04:36 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. That would describe about 90% of the country.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dmallind Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-28-11 10:52 AM
Response to Reply #9
14. Meh - a bit pessimistic IMO. 75% maybe. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SoCalDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-27-11 07:37 PM
Response to Reply #7
11. shallow morons seem to be voting with more and more regularity
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Raine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-27-11 07:50 PM
Response to Reply #7
12. Like it or not THAT is the reality in the 21st century
it's naive to think otherwise.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dmallind Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-28-11 10:52 AM
Response to Reply #12
13. Yes - because a lot of people ARE shallow morons - never said otherwise. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LanternWaste Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-28-11 10:59 AM
Response to Reply #2
15. Only in format, not in content.
"appearance matters more..."

I believe that appearance merely matters vis-a-vis format, not in content. Appearance cannot, in any meaningful way, make one more or less effective and efficient at governance.

Let's try not to buy into Madison Avenue's dogmatic insistence that looks supersede content.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
meegbear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-27-11 03:36 PM
Response to Original message
3. Caloric-Americans have always been a part of American politics
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
woo me with science Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-27-11 03:44 PM
Response to Original message
4. Yeah, but that was before slick corporate media and Richard Nixon's flopsweat.
Now we get this:





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DFab420 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-27-11 03:58 PM
Response to Original message
5. Lol and this was back when doctors prescribed a good belt of scotch for the humors......
Seriously this is the argument that being over-weight is a health concern?

These men were lucky they didn't drop dead one day out on a walk...

BTW

TAFT : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Howard_Taft

"Evidence from eyewitnesses, and from Taft himself, strongly suggests that during his presidency he had severe obstructive sleep apnea because of his obesity. Within a year of leaving the presidency, Taft lost approximately 80 pounds (36 kg). His somnolence problem resolved and, less obviously, his systolic blood pressure dropped 40–50 mmHg (from 210 mmHg). Undoubtedly, this weight loss extended his life.<48> Soon after his weight loss, he had a revival of interest in the outdoors; this led him to explore Alaska.<49> Beginning in 1920, Taft used a cane; this was a gift from Professor of Geology W.S. Foster, and was made of 250,000-year-old wood.<50>"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dmallind Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-27-11 04:06 PM
Response to Original message
6. The two non-assassinated ones both outlived normal expectancy, 19 and 24 yrs more than Christie now
Edited on Tue Sep-27-11 04:06 PM by dmallind
So much for weight and political responsibility being a sure early death.

Both of course lived with much poorer medicine and fewer exertion-saving devices.

Concern-trolling Christie's weight makes us look like idiots, and is nothing more than a flimsy fig leaf for sizeism.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Proud Public Servant Donating Member (213 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-27-11 04:25 PM
Response to Original message
8. But Christie would be the fattest!
At 5'9 and 300 lbs, he'd have a BMI of 44.3, the highest of any president (Taft's was only 42.3; he was 6' tall)

And I didn't realize he was that short; if he were elected, he'd not only be the most-obese (and second-heaviest) president, he's also be the shortest president of the last 100 years (tied with Truman).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
orion007 Donating Member (466 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-27-11 05:13 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. Calories needed per day at 5'9"-300 lbs to maintain that weight
2,684.5...the calculator didn't ask if male or female

To me it doesn't seem like that much food to maintain that weight..
I have wondered just what and how much he does eat on an average day?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Dec 27th 2024, 03:51 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC