Which one of these statements seem more logical to you?

Both are logical on the surface. The more logical idea would be for our leader to be a intelligent person, because intelligence allows a person to see what others do not or choose not to, a intelligent wealthy person can understand the poor, and a intelligent poor person can understand the wealthy....

Unfortunately in America it has become politically incorrect to be intelligent.

2

2

Why on earth are you reasoning between rich and poor? I would be much more concerned with their education, health (mental and physical), cultural background (multicultural vs. highly sheltered), and overall knowledge and experience (have they had to apply for a bank loan, raise a family, balance a check book, work for minimum wage, etc). Focusing on rich vs. poor is just an extreme liberal view and ignores so many important aspects of deciding a leader.

The 1st one,

the 2nd statement could have terrible outcomes, since most of the time, they try to distribute the misery among the nation rather than finding a basic solution for the poor.

The whole question lacks logic since there is nothing in the question that tells me about the persons beliefs. You make assumptions that a rich person can't know what its like to be poor and a poor person can't be greedy with natural resources.

Well in my country, english friend, Argentine, we had the two extreme cases and we have a new coposicion: Corruption.

We have this new president CFK that become of the poorless, and she take all our money out. So, that depends of the person, if it's rich or not, it doesn't matter.

After that, we had a lot of pesidents that were rich and carry away all our money without thinking in it.

Well, i'm a writter so that makes it more tragic... but is serious and thrue.

Thanks, you have a new Argentinian friend, Bird

funny you've put your idea in such extremes still it makes a great deal of sense cause in most cases not many ambitious people turn out to be flat plain "Middle Class".

I choose the poor side. it just seems more "logical". one that has actually felt the misery could do more. but well...I have never been poor! but I have seen...seen a lot...

I hope you get my point...you can be rich and care for "everyone". eh?

Not so. God created everything good. Going against good was given a name that name is evil. God did not have to create it. While this is a poor example think of this. A gun is not evil, but when some one misuses it the action is evil and the gun really did not play a part in it nor did it "create the evil."

"I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears, and sweat."

~Winston Churchill, Speech in the House of Commons, after taking office as Prime Minister (13 May 1940)

I didn't answer as you wished to focus on those two statements, because I think they don't matter as long as the things that do matter are considered.