With exactly the same policies. The only difference being gender.
2007-10-21 19:54:00 · 22 answers · asked by kelstar 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
What planet are you from, Brumby Girl?!! You have no idea what you are talking about. You think you are not being sexist because you're a girl!? Then you explicitly exclude all females from positions of authority. That is the very definition of sexism!!
And what makes you think all female politicians are feminist? Have you never heard of Margaret Thatcher? And why is it better for "domineering and power-hungry" men to be in power? You are very confused.
"O c boomer" on the other hand is just an out-and-out woman-hater. You belong with the Taliban, mate. Thankfully your sort are doomed to disappear along with the dinosaurs.
((Obviously, I would vote for the person I trusted faithfully and honestly to carry out the policies they promised: in Australia we've been lied to a lot lately by "domineering and power-hungry" politicians.))
2007-10-22 02:44:51 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Female, only if it was from the Labor Party. We have seen the cruel nature of Liberal Women (federal only). I have voted for both parties at different times but Liberal women scare me, not in appearance but policy and demeanour. They would make the first fleet who brought the convicts over look good. Actually I think 4 are still running the country,Howard, Abbott, Costello and Downer, time to sail home boys jobs done some 200 years ago!
2007-10-21 20:23:04 · answer #2 · answered by Surfa101 2 · 4⤊ 0⤋
A Harvard-knowledgeable lawyer (who happens to be an American male who's a million/2 white and a million/2 black, no longer BLACK) with a pro vp determination vs. a seventy two-300 and sixty 5 days previous ex-POW with 4 coronaries, a foul temper, foul mouth, a lot of properties that he can no longer count form that top and a fundamentalist anti-era sportscaster (who happens to be an American female) as his vp determination... yeah, properly, those are issues to evaluate. i'm no longer able to vote for my vital, because of the fact she's busy working our college. yet i will vote for my innovations on account that's what rational human beings do. i do no longer care that Obama is a million/2 white, a million/2 black, a male or youthful: he represents a important replace from 8 years of disaster, which his elderly opponent won't be able to and does not furnish. the considered Palin as Prez is horrifying, no longer the actual shown fact that she's a woman.
2016-10-04 08:17:05 · answer #3 · answered by lutz 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I would vote for the one who could convince me that they truly believed in the policies and in Australia. I couldn't care less what gender they are. As far as I am concerned that's like saying would you vote for someone who is blonde or a redhead. It is totally irrelevant what gender a person is. It is relevant how much they are committed to this country and the people they serve. That's what I vote for.
2007-10-22 03:24:11 · answer #4 · answered by cutsie_dread 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
With exactly the same policies. The only difference being gender??? Not likely to happen. But if it where the case, I'd toss a coin.
2007-10-21 19:58:08 · answer #5 · answered by Ferret 5 · 1⤊ 3⤋
In England or Australia either is cool, Margaret Thatcher had no problem in breaking the beariers - and there is a monarchy with a Queen that is the forebearer of the country.
In the USA, we broke away from England and men fought to give this nation its freedom, our way of life grew in a different direction from that of England. Those who have migrated to this country do not understand this issue and now we have a freaking woman who is corrupt as all get out who wants us to go backwards instead of forward. It is not adviseable for this country to be led by a woman, considering we do not have a royal family or monarchy.
My opinion? Good Luck in your country. Vote for the male, keep your balls, the thought of a female PM turns my stomach even in your part of the woods. Marry these women, have kids, and keep them from working or even running for any office that governs the country. Spoil them without regret, rich or poor.
We as men need to simply start providing and setting the examples of giving a darn for the lives we create.
2007-10-21 20:37:30 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 4⤋
Not reality, but hypothetically I would probably go female at this point because a female would have something to prove and therefore be better motivated.
It comes down to 2 broad qualifiers for any job fit potential: Can you do the job? Are you motivated to do it?
2007-10-21 20:01:02 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
Then it would boil down to his or her personal character which includes clarity of vision, moral ethics, ability to lead, farsightedness, personal charisma and so on. After that whosoever comes top should be the PM.
2007-10-21 19:59:59 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
It would depend on those policies. I think the male equivilant of Thatcher would be just as bad as the real thing.
2007-10-21 21:36:24 · answer #9 · answered by sydrooboy 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Living in Australia we never had a female PM, so why not give it a try.
2007-10-21 21:50:41 · answer #10 · answered by TheOutsider 1 · 4⤊ 1⤋