danny.

Careful chap, on here if you say you comprehend why someone did something thats equated to agreeing and supporting their actions

No point, just interested in who you think gets stick and doesn't. I feel like China and India are just on people's radar less, along with most of the world which doesn't even make the news a lot.

I don't hear much criticism of Xi TBH - do you think he does get justified criticism? Chinese society with their social score and punishments seems pretty dystopian in many ways to me.

The right wing vote will be split Reform/Restore/Tory, the Left wing Labour/Green, Lib dems in the middle don't get many votes so we're heading for a coalition at this rate. Years away though so all the polls are meaningless.

Oh yea, I know. So Putin, Trump, anyone else, who is the etc?

which other leaders do you think get a free ride?

Yea just been reading about it - seems pretty horrendous from the US from what I’ve read.

Fair. I think I'd rather go Max! That's a preference, and a fecking bleak one at that either way!

Yea... so I think you picked a comment out of context. I don't disagree with that you're saying but it's nothing to do with the thread I was talking about.

I see your point but I think in a world with bad actors that may ensure species survivability but at a cost of a genuinely dystopian future. Hopefully its not a binary choice bit unless everyone is aligned (obviously they aren't) we are back to the tolerance paradox.

I genuinely love your opinions and sentiments and I agree with them too at a deep level, but they are so far from pragmatism in so many situations.

Why are you bringing the public into a discussion about military operations? And I haven't mentioned anything close to "the Iranian public are oppressed pro-westerners waiting to be rescued by their crusade knights in shining armour" so maybe you confused me with someone else if you're not using a straw man.

So you need to wait for them to show that in a military sense first? That sounds like a terrible tactic for war "I'll shoot that enemy only after they've already shot me". I think there are more factors that would go into a less black and white strategy. Iran also seems pretty happy to send missiles all over the Middle East at people with little to no provocation so they haven't exactly demonstrated to be peaceable and honourable. Side context: I don't think the US or anyone else from the West should have attacked Iran, it's meddling where they have no right or jurisdiction, but they have, and I'm just talking about their operations now they are already engaged.

I know you think all cultures are equal, but I think the Islamic Republic of Iran, as a theocratic culture happy to execute women for showing hair, might be more inclined to go along with "fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them" than a non Islamic country.

Was that the whole take away from that? Wasn’t really my point and I do agree with your point.

Benjamin Netanyahu not being in jail would suggest not.

After a bit more reading of the PDF, my main concerns are: The headlines used are conflating two different responses, there is "forcibly removed" and also "encouraged to leave". I don't like either personally, but they're objectively different positions, one is advocating legal coercion and the other is more a preference. And we have no idea what the split is (again no data) so could be 1% went for the harsher option, or 53%, who knows. Members is a very different thing to voters, the guardian said (headline has changed since originally published bit you can see in the slug it did say voters) "voters" but the actual survey was "members", obviously a paid up member of Reform is going to be more extreme than a swing voter. So this is just plain misleading/wrong, it would be like equating Momentum members with a casual swing Labour voter. The question it self I find the hardest to swallow (and horrendous if so), but did they really ask about "white" and "non-white" citizens? That's what I'd really like to know and to see the question working as that is flat out racism. Or was the question worded about immigration/anti-immigration with some conflating? Who knows. It could be real or it could be spin. Again I find it very very hard to believe that 54% said "non whites should be forcibly removed", beyond the realms of reasonable probability. The sample size is just over 600, that isn't great, and from the way the report is presented without sources and with the headline figures as prose and in the executive summary it does suggest this is to make a shock headline over anything else. Else why hide the question wording and data? Even if that was all above board, I don't think it's reasonable to equate ~600 paid up Reform members to "Reform voter". Edit: just saw your edit, yup that was the PDF I looked at.

The Guardian and Independent both quote the report which is on HnH's site - which only presents the percentages as prose narrative, no links to the question wording, data or sources. Which I find weird when some sections are clearly presented with the question wording and data. I think the data might be in the Survation data tables but can't find them either. There are a lot of red flags on this after a quick 15 minute glance at the report.

Do you have a source for the survey data? That seems quite shocking to me. I checked the report - 150 pages and no reference to the data, only the findings referring to 54% in narrative form, without including the survey question text (which quite a few of the questions do include). I'd like to see the actual survey data.

I don't think many of them got a choice...

Yea, not perfect at all. But then women could walk around without being executed for not wearing a hijab, so... every cloud eh!

It feels like something changed for the Islamic Republic of Iran, to change it from a nice society for a really bad one for a lot of people, sort of 50 years ago or so.

Thanks for pasting all that. Not sure I agree that Dubai is “a region in turmoil”, certainly not before the last few days. Obviously there are wider issues in the region with groups like the Houthis, but Dubai itself has been pretty stabl

Wow, you'll be joining Reform and the KKK next

I'm still really confused - so according to your claim: - Person X moves from Location A to Location B. - Person X says that Location B provides a much better standard of life for them than Location A - quoting things like better crime metrics, cleanliness, tax rates, etc. + anything else they consider is better. - Location B then is affected by extraordinary circumstances no one could have reasonably foreseen. This means Person X should have had better foresight? Seems like you require people to have fortune telling skills. Not sure what the humility has to do with anything either.