But you're asking me the pointless hypothetical question of what would happen if she was the leader of Belgium.

The whole point is that everywhere has different circumstances. That's why I'm bringing up Belgium. They have different circumstances. Same with Hawaii.

It's not a pointless hypothetical. It's to illustrate the point that there are more to the results and performance of each country than their leader. Arden did a great job with the hand she was dealt. But she was dealt a straight flush. Deal her a crap hand, does she still take the pot?

The problem is that instead of acknowledging what pretty much everyone on this board understands, and even Trump-hating doctors and scientists would acknowledge- that you can't compare New Zealand to pretty much anywhere else and saying someone did a great job there is a bit silly considering the hand they were dealt.

Instead, your answer is to stubbornly refuse to admit any errors in initial thought and just lash out and insult everyone else. How Trumpian of you.

Unsurprisingly you clearly have a problem with effective liberal female leaders.

Unsurprisingly you write shit like this when its obvious you're losing the argument.

But no, the problem I have is with poor reasoning. The consensus is that NZ has a situation that is ideally suited to deal with Corona, to a degree that you can't really compare it to any other first world country. Arden did well, but she had a MUCH easier job than everyone else.

Tough controlling this border.

Or this one:


There's actually a small island of Dutch territory that's in an island of Belgian territory which completely surrounded by the Netherlands... less than a kilometer away from a region where the exact opposite is true.

The whole point is that everywhere has different circumstances. That's why I'm bringing up Belgium. They have different circumstances. Same with Hawaii.

It's not a pointless hypothetical. It's to illustrate the point that there are more to the results and performance of each country than their leader. Arden did a great job with the hand she was dealt. But she was dealt a straight flush. Deal her a crap hand, does she still take the pot?

The problem is that instead of acknowledging what pretty much everyone on this board understands, and even Trump-hating doctors and scientists would acknowledge- that you can't compare New Zealand to pretty much anywhere else and saying someone did a great job there is a bit silly considering the hand they were dealt.

Instead, your answer is to stubbornly refuse to admit any errors in initial thought and just lash out and insult everyone else. How Trumpian of you.
Unsurprisingly you write shit like this when its obvious you're losing the argument.

But no, the problem I have is with poor reasoning. The consensus is that NZ has a situation that is ideally suited to deal with Corona, to a degree that you can't really compare it to any other first world country. Arden did well, but she had a MUCH easier job than everyone else.

So now you have no argument and are back to agreeing with me that Ardern did a great job. And you're saying that everything is the same because circumstances are different and nobody is good or bad at anything, so basically everyone is equally bad at everything. This is not an argument.

"New Zealand is not Belgium, but also what would the leader of New Zealand do if she was the leader of Belgium, but you can't answer that because the circumstances are different, also answer the question."

Of course, one might argue that a large part of being a great leader is to shape circumstance so that one can be a more effective leader.