The Finnish PM's party got 18% of the vote in the last election. She didn't stand for election, she was appointed and her party has 13% popularity right now. S

The Finnish PM's party got 18% of the vote in the last election. She didn't stand for election, she was appointed and her party has 13% popularity right now. So literally 13% popularity (party) and unelected. She had 3 years of experience in federal politics before being promoted (not elected) leader of a nation. She also has a gushing Goop-like Instagram full of gorgeous pictures of her and her boy at exotic destinations, 'thinspo' shots, glam shots. She doesn't have any intellectual, academic, or otherwise rigorous credentials. She's also easily the most attractive person in Finnish politics. So the real question is - how do intelligent people interpret those who are utterly unqualified and illegitimate in almost every way, who are obviously popular at least due to their visual social media profile and nothing more ... to be 'leaders of integrity, capability, and virtue'? And of course, arbitrarily picking two leaders from some group (ie female) as somehow evidence of something? This the exactly the same thing as Trump, just the other side of the coin. It's anti-intellectual & I don't think we want this in politics or real political discussion. There might be some interesting 'gender' argument somewhere there, but this is not it.