Do You Recall Any Presidential Candidate Making Results Of A Recent Physical Public

Historically, does the more attractive presidential candidate usually win?

Yes and no.  As other commenters point out, worrying about physical appearance is more of a modern phenomenon.  I can find few if any newspaper columns from the late 1700s that focused on how George Washington looked, or whether he was considered handsome.  The focus was always on his accomplishments and his bearing-- that is, how he carried himself, how he acted, how he spoke, whether his speeches inspired confidence.  In fact, in the radio age, a good speaking voice became crucial for success (Calvin Coolidge, by his own admission, had a terrible radio voice-- he often sounded nasal; but he turned it into a plus, using his good personality to make fun of himself and win the approval of the public).Historically, we've had overweight presidents, bald presidents, very tall presidents, somewhat shorter presidents, even a president who could not walk without crutches (and who was protected by the media of his day-- Franklin Delano Roosevelt was rarely photographed in his wheelchair or on crutches; the public only saw him standing at the podium or standing in some other settings, giving the appearance of strength and confidence in an era when being disabled was equated with the inability to do much of anything); but more often than not, the public chose the man considered the best able to impress them with his deeds.  The winner was not always physically handsome, but he had mastered the ability to persuade the most Americans that he would be the man to handle the nation's problems.  Also, let's be honest-- "good-looking" is a subjective judgment.  When I was a kid, many of us had a crush on John F. Kennedy and found him quite handsome; I also remember thinking Richard Nixon looked shifty and nervous and unattractive.  And yet, while he lost the famed Kennedy-Nixon debate in the court of public opinion (but only to the TV audience; surveys of those who listened to radio and were not distracted by his appearance thought his ideas were far better expressed than Kennedy's), Nixon was still able to win the presidency later on, despite his lack of movie-star good looks.  So, while it is true that being a "hottie" is useful in the TV age, it is no guarantee you will win.  There are plenty of candidates whose looks might be considered average or below-average, yet they have a large following:  if the candidate is personable and able to relate to (and inspire) the audience, that is far more important than just being physically attractive.

When Trump gets his yearly physical will the results be available to the public?

The White House says “yes”. “(Sarah) Sanders said Trump will undergo the customary presidential physical in early 2018 at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, adding, ‘Those records will be released by the doctor following that taking place.’" (White House to release results of Trump's next physical after slurred speech)What you have to do, though, with anything the “White House” says is: One: Remember, it’s the “White House”, and the “White House” is NOT President Trump. So if they are not released, Sarah will probably say, “Well, I never said the president would release them.” Two: Saying “yes” often means “no”, or at least, “Well, we didn’t really mean ‘yes’”. What she probably means is:“The president will authorize release of the medical records IF those records show that he is in absolutely in the most bestest shape of any president in American history, and quite possibly the history of the world and of any country that had or has ever had presidents and possibly all kings, queens, Caesars, Czars, caliphs, chiefs, fuhrers, maharajas, Moghuls, and emperors since the time of Nimrod.”

Can 'Right to Recall act' make Indian politicians/bureaucrats accountable to the common people?

Thanks for A2A!Let us analyze the pros cons and the feasibility of the proposal step by step. PROSMore legislative accountability which is now enforced once in 5 years or through media. Better attention towards constituencyMore politically sensitized publicBetter implementation of schemes as political will power will now grease the wheels of bureaucracy It may also help micro level planning CONSexcessive instability in already unstable parliamentary system. Consider 20 BJP MPS being recalled now. Pm will lose the majority in LS and all plans will be up in the air. The mechanism of recall can itself become corruptFalse allegations will increaseElections will be more frequent and divisive issues of caste and religion will be repeatedly raisedThe work of election Commission will be immensely complicated, logistics will be a nightmareWho will set the bottom line of failure? When should a referendum be taken? There is no report card now. What is feasible? Reduce the time period from 5 to 4 yearsMP can be disqualified on the basis of attendance in the house or the number of questions asked or even on the utilization of his own development funds. Stricter norms for making inflammatory speeches and indecent remarksIncisive auditing of MP s wealth by CAG and disqualification post illegal holdings are proven. They should at least be banned for 10 years from the date of conviction Right to recall is in principle correct but not feasible. Still we can stay true to its spirit.