General News Thread

[Trav Le Bleu]

42 minutes ago, worthosoriginals said:

Trump might wriggle free

I had a trump wriggle free just minutes ago.

[Clogger_]

2 hours ago, danny. said:

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.

Not all Reform voters are racist*, but an awful lot of racists are attracted to Reform...

 

(*I can't actually back this statement up, because every one I encounter is!)

Edited 4 March by Clogger_

[worthosoriginals]

2 hours ago, danny. said:

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.

 

200w.webp

[worthosoriginals]

2 hours ago, danny. said:

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.

 

[danny.]

49 minutes ago, Clogger_ said:

Not all Reform voters are racist*, but an awful lot of racists are attracted to Reform...

 

(*I can't actually back this statement up, because every one I encounter is!)

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

[bovril]

Considering how much "why do leftists support an Islamist regime like Iran's?" gets trotted out it is under-discussed how much English 'conservatives' have been taken over by the MAGA cult to the extent that they are now willing to criticise their own country for not doing enough to help carry out the geopolitical objectives of Israel of all places.  

[MPH]

Next Nation to start throwing hands is going to be Saudi Arabia, me thinks..

 

 

they have way too much GDP invested in oil for Iran to be flying drones into their oil infrastructure…

[Jon the Hat]

7 hours ago, Zear0 said:

Bit late to the party with this news, but it's wild they've used a SSN to torpedo that Iranian vessel.  There's a reason HMS Conqueror was the last boat to do so as it's not considered cricket amongst Navy's to do it.  They really don't care what they do.

I'm not sure I get your point.  It is most likely a Los Angelese class attack submarine, that is what it is for - well that and finding and sinking other submarines.  Are you perhaps confusing with an SSBN which holds ballistic nuclear missiles?

 

It seems to me if the Iranian ship was headed back to the Gulf of Oman, then taking it out is the reasonable thing to do.  At least being near Sri Lanka the sailors had a chance of rescue.

[Jon the Hat]

16 minutes ago, MPH said:

Next Nation to start throwing hands is going to be Saudi Arabia, me thinks..

 

 

they have way too much GDP invested in oil for Iran to be flying drones into their oil infrastructure…

Not many countries put up with missiles and drones attacking them.  Iran might have got away with targeting US bases only, but it seems a bit like they are either insane or they have lost command and control of their missile /drone forces and local commanders are firing at anything.

[MPH]

5 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

Not many countries put up with missiles and drones attacking them.  Iran might have got away with targeting US bases only, but it seems a bit like they are either insane or they have lost command and control of their missile /drone forces and local commanders are firing at anything.

yeah I’m not really sure of their logic either. I suppose most boxers like to go down swinging or warriors like to be carried out on their shield or whatever  but surely there’s a shred of dignity to that kind of thing, I don’t see the dignity in bringing someone else in to a war that is not theirs…

[Jattdogg]

6 hours ago, Lionator said:

I like socialist MTG

Despised her during Bidens term. It's crazy how she has done a complete change which is somewhat refreshing. She was speaking truth about what's going on although you always have to ask what is her angle.

 

I am all for accepting of people who see the light, I just hope it's not all for show.

 

 

 

 

[MPH]

23 minutes ago, Jattdogg said:

Despised her during Bidens term. It's crazy how she has done a complete change which is somewhat refreshing. She was speaking truth about what's going on although you always have to ask what is her angle.

 

I am all for accepting of people who see the light, I just hope it's not all for show.

 

 

 

 

 

The murky world of American politics 

[Trav Le Bleu]

4 hours ago, MPH said:

yeah I’m not really sure of their logic either. I suppose most boxers like to go down swinging or warriors like to be carried out on their shield or whatever  but surely there’s a shred of dignity to that kind of thing, I don’t see the dignity in bringing someone else in to a war that is not theirs…

You mean like the USA trying to get all and sundry involved?

[Trav Le Bleu]

2 hours ago, MPH said:

 

The murky world of politics 

Fixed

[foxes1988]

5 hours ago, Jon the Hat said:

Not many countries put up with missiles and drones attacking them.  Iran might have got away with targeting US bases only, but it seems a bit like they are either insane or they have lost command and control of their missile /drone forces and local commanders are firing at anything.

I think it's more. If we're going down we're taking everyone down with us philosophy that people normally associate with a nuclear war

[Zear0]

6 hours ago, Jon the Hat said:

I'm not sure I get your point.  It is most likely a Los Angelese class attack submarine, that is what it is for - well that and finding and sinking other submarines.  Are you perhaps confusing with an SSBN which holds ballistic nuclear missiles?

 

It seems to me if the Iranian ship was headed back to the Gulf of Oman, then taking it out is the reasonable thing to do.  At least being near Sri Lanka the sailors had a chance of rescue.

Definitely not confusing them! It's one of the rules of engagement written into Navy operational documentation that SSN primary functions are reconnaissance, specifical forces deployment and land attack strikes. Attacking surface ships are written as last resort as the scale of casualties are almost always significant. 

 

I'm not sure drowning off the coast of Sri Lanka is more desirable to being in the Gulf. You saw the impact of the Mk 48 torpedo and how it would kill crew very quickly. The US have the capability to incapacitate a ship with much fewer casualties should they want. This was a "kill em all" approach that is rarely used for this reason. 

[leicsmac]

5 minutes ago, Zear0 said:

Definitely not confusing them! It's one of the rules of engagement written into Navy operational documentation that SSN primary functions are reconnaissance, specifical forces deployment and land attack strikes. Attacking surface ships are written as last resort as the scale of casualties are almost always significant. 

 

I'm not sure drowning off the coast of Sri Lanka is more desirable to being in the Gulf. You saw the impact of the Mk 48 torpedo and how it would kill crew very quickly. The US have the capability to incapacitate a ship with much fewer casualties should they want. This was a "kill em all" approach that is rarely used for this reason. 

Quite.

 

@Jon the Hat, mate, I see the point being made here but is the attitude of the current US administration towards any human (or other) life, except their own, not obvious yet?

[StanSP]

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, StanSP said:

Unfortunately, there's still good money in shilling for sociopaths.

 

You'd think the ex-PM pension would be enough for her to be alright with.

[Zear0]

8 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Quite.

 

@Jon the Hat, mate, I see the point being made here but is the attitude of the current US administration towards any human (or other) life, except their own, not obvious yet?

Also not entirely sure against the declared, and constantly changing, war (not a war...) aim of, Regime change, stop nuclear weapon development, Destroy ballistic missile capability aligns with downing a s**ty old ship thousands of miles from the combat zone. 

 

It was unnecessary and is bordering on a war crime. I've got naval connections and the view of what they did is utter outrage. 

 

Edited 5 March by Zear0

[leicsmac]

14 minutes ago, Zear0 said:

Also not entirely sure against the declared, and constantly changing, war (not a war...) aim of, Regime change, stop nuclear weapon development, Destroy ballistic missile capability aligns with downing a s**ty old ship thousands of miles from the combat zone. 

 

It was unnecessary and is bordering on a war crime. I've got naval connections and the view of what they did is utter outrage. 

 

Absolutely agree. However, personally I don't think it's surprising.

 

Their Might Makes Right viewpoint also includes that winners never commit war crimes. Edit: It also includes not viewing other human beings as human, which, funnily enough, is one of the exact things they accuse those they fight of.

Edited 5 March by leicsmac

[Lionator]

4 hours ago, Jattdogg said:

Despised her during Bidens term. It's crazy how she has done a complete change which is somewhat refreshing. She was speaking truth about what's going on although you always have to ask what is her angle.

 

I am all for accepting of people who see the light, I just hope it's not all for show.

 

 

 

 

Her angle is an authentic America first as was promised during Trump’s election run. It’s still very right wing and a bit screwed but the main premise was and is non interventionism. 

[Jon the Hat]

46 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Quite.

 

@Jon the Hat, mate, I see the point being made here but is the attitude of the current US administration towards any human (or other) life, except their own, not obvious yet?

I completely agree they don't give a shit about loss of life beyond political pressure at home.  I was questioning the desperation point I suppose.  

[Jon the Hat]

41 minutes ago, Zear0 said:

Also not entirely sure against the declared, and constantly changing, war (not a war...) aim of, Regime change, stop nuclear weapon development, Destroy ballistic missile capability aligns with downing a s**ty old ship thousands of miles from the combat zone. 

 

It was unnecessary and is bordering on a war crime. I've got naval connections and the view of what they did is utter outrage. 

 

One of their newest ships I believe.  Would it be better to wait until it returned to the Gulf of Oman and attacked something?  

 

I am sure Navy folks feel comforted by the idea of rules of the game, but I seriously doubt our enemies give a shit.  If the Iranians had the capability they would wipe us off the face of the earth along with most of our allies.

[Jon the Hat]

58 minutes ago, Zear0 said:

Definitely not confusing them! It's one of the rules of engagement written into Navy operational documentation that SSN primary functions are reconnaissance, specifical forces deployment and land attack strikes. Attacking surface ships are written as last resort as the scale of casualties are almost always significant. 

 

I'm not sure drowning off the coast of Sri Lanka is more desirable to being in the Gulf. You saw the impact of the Mk 48 torpedo and how it would kill crew very quickly. The US have the capability to incapacitate a ship with much fewer casualties should they want. This was a "kill em all" approach that is rarely used for this reason. 

So if there was a war with China, you think the SSNs wouldn't sink every ship they set their sights on?  Sounds like peacetime policy to me.