Can't believe no one mentioned this beauty! Mo-Do - Eins Zwei Polizei
I don't know if it's your reading comprehension or you're just confused, but I urge you to re-read my comments - I'm not trying to convince you of anything, you clearly made your decision and it doesn't seem to be based on any empirical evidence.
You made some bold claims though and I'm here to challenge you on those.
- You claim to be a "leftie".
- You voted remain.
- You want to reform FPTP and immigration.
- Apparently reform are the only ones to hit all the boxes.
So my answer is this... If you vote Reform, you're not a leftie. If you vote Farage, you're not a Remainer either. There are other parties who want to reform voting and immigration with better track record, actual councillors and more humane policies.
Why would I vote for libdem?
Because they want to get rid of FPTP and fix immigration, your main two important issues. But it seems like you're adding extra steps now..
Anyways, reading your other comments here, you've confirmed what others already suspected - you don't really want to fix the root issues of immigration, you're just a xenophob.
If those are your main issues, how are they any different from greens or libdems?
Assuming you're not trolling. Can you please expand on what good points do you think they offer?
Autocorrect.. What's his excuse?
Rishi... President? Yea, I don't think you're front the UK.
I agree and I don't understand why people like op keep bashing green parties. There's a reason why nuclear is not a viable option. Ignoring the financial burden - Nuclear waste is not a technological issue, but a political one. People don't trust politicians and corporations to keep it safe for multiple millennia. Look at the state of the UK rivers, chronical waste dumping to save money. People who don't think it will happen with nuclear waste are delusional or don't know their history, as we already had nuclear dumping incidents near Australia, Baltic Sea, Mediterranean Sea etc..
The majority of the civil service don't support those policies. It's not their fault that every now and then some crazy unelected "CEO" comes along and tells the directorate "now do this". In the last ten years the Home Secretary changed eight times!
Just create a new universe that is ruled by the matriarchy, call it 'warhammer 60k' and job done. That way, the new universe will cater to new audiences without the lore being ruined with more plot holes.
I come to these discussions in good faith, because I want to believe that some people are not here to spew propaganda and maybe are just bad with statistics.. But somehow it always ends with "America bad" (which I don't necessarily dispute, but I think is just lazy).
Lets break some things down:
- I think that per person data is important, otherwise it's just obfuscation.
- These forest growth numbers are great, but they don't tell the whole picture that even with this rate of growth, China will still have less forest than the US in 30 years time.
- 'Nuclear plants most in production' don't mean much as it can take forever to finish and even then China will have less than France or US.
- 'Most high speed railroad' it's impressive, but isn't it wasteful to build something just for boasting? The railway is highly underutilised - only 60% use (and that's with the big skew for the major urban centres, some lines barely meet 10%).
- To build the three gorges dam 1.3 million people were displaced, and between 70k to 230k died. China has one of the worst health and safety standards in the world. The death toll in manufacturing and construction is FOUR times higher than the global average.
What is an acceptable death toll for you? Because China seems to have a very high tolerance. Does the end goal justify the means? You can't get away with this high percentage of death in democratic countries from your examples, where the electorate has more power to say "no thanks".
Anyways, I think China is doing a lot of good steps for the environment, and it pushes other countries to compete. But saying that China is the only one that can save us, while burning 53% of the world's coal is ridiculous.
Mainly 5 year terms, but I can see on the list some 6 and 7 year terms as well.. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_term_limits
Thank you for the reply and I appreciate the graphs. Most of those stats would benefit greatly, and would present a better picture if the units were per person though. I'm actually more impressed with some of the other countries in those images, that managed to achieve some of those things with a fraction of China's population.
Why? What is China doing better in this context?
Not every county has four year terms. Also, elections can be triggered early for various reasons.
What do you do when you need to update all the machines with your setup?
Israel is an interesting case.. The stats are skewed because Israel has the biggest amount of religious "minorities" in any developed country. But if you look at the Tel Aviv bubble then it's almost 50/50.
Genuine question - what's your opinion of the Jordanian treatment of Palestinians?