General Election June 8th

Who will you vote for at the General Election?

  • Conservatives

    Votes: 189 28.8%

  • Labour

    Votes: 366 55.8%

  • Liberal Democrats

    Votes: 37 5.6%

  • SNP

    Votes: 8 1.2%

  • UKIP

    Votes: 23 3.5%

  • Other

    Votes: 33 5.0%
  • Total voters
    656
Status
Not open for further replies.
malg said:
Fucking hell, don't start me on that one.......
Click to expand...

Hunger causes irritation mate tell me your loaction and i'll point you in the direction of a food bank. Just show your public sector card and you'll get the best red wine dinner you've ever dreamt of.
 
RandomJ said:
I can't seriously believe this is the biggest talking point of the election now. Fucking nuclear war. The NHS is at breaking point, rent and house prices are out of control, people can't afford to feed their families, public services being cut left right and centre but no a hypothetical situation of a retaliatory nuke is the biggest issue this country has today.
Click to expand...
Only 2 countries in europe have nuclear weapons to my knowledge, shouldn't the rest be shitting themselves more than us ?
 
Danamy said:
English mentality, if we're going down at least get one dig in......
Click to expand...

Another one who doesn't understand.

There are two options to take on nuclear weapons

Don't have them and save lots of money

Have them and tell everyone you would use them even if you wouldn't

Having them and saying you won't use them or not answer the question is about as fucking stupid as stupid gets.

Corbyn has discarded common sense because his past dictates that he feels he has to
 
MCFC1993 said:
I'm trying to make a point so similar to what you're saying but it's so hard to word it right. I get the need for a deterrent, I get the need for a leader to say they will use them or at least lie about using them.

However, either as a first option or a retaliation strike the final result is equally grim.
Click to expand...
Stealth capable nuclear weapons were the main focus of nuclear warfare research towards the end of the Cold War. An impossible to detect, first strike capability would have made MAD redundant. Take out your enemy before they can respond, the perfect endgame. Thankfully, nuclear launch detection is so efficient there would be enough time to organise a retaliation and everyone is aware of it so a first strike isn't a viable option these days.

But again, the question being put to him (irrelevant in my view cosnidering everything else) is simply people putting the hypothetic scenario that, if pressed, would he make that sort of decision, a sort of 'test' of his leadership qualities and so far nobody is convinced by his answer. It could easily have been along the lines of "if this country was invaded, would you mobilise the armed forces, because in the past, you've been against using military force"

Nukes just have more connection due to his CND days and anti-war comments of days gone by. Would a pacifist PM use a nuke? That's a sign of weakness to quite of lot of people and they want reassurance before putting him in a position where such a scenario could still theoretically happen where he would directly influence it.
 
RandomJ said:
What an easy thing to say as someone who doesn't need them. To many they are a life line.
Click to expand...

They are pal it's a disgrace we have a need for them. The parody on this thread is mainly about how for point scoring purposes nurses are held up to be the yardstick for abject poverty, and I would pay nurses more so nurses aren't the issue political spin is.
 
Damocles said:
Just to be clear here, if the UK were hit by a first strike can somebody explain what are the benefits to retaliation that will kill millions?

I've never understood this. It can't be to prevent us getting hit, because we've already been hit. It can't be to stop a war because a nuclear war by definition won't last long enough to matter.

Why? Why are people so desperate for It? Petty revenge? You want to slaughter millions and risk a global climate change event on the scale of the dinosaurs mass extinction because some maniac bombed us?

Somebody has to explain this. It makes no sense at all. I can only presume people haven't thought this through.
Click to expand...
There is no sense in it, the only sense is that the maniac who's going to bomb us doesn't fancy melting in a nuclear blast so doesn't attack us in the first place for the last 60 odd years its worked.
 
vonkeynotvenky said:
Hunger causes irritation mate tell me your loaction and i'll point you in the direction of a food bank. Just show your public sector card and you'll get the best red wine dinner you've ever dreamt of.
Click to expand...
Burnage. Just finished the beer, and am now having to rely on a Japanese single malt, so a glass of red would go down nice...... Please help, I'm fucking dying here...
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
But we're told that nuclear weapons are the ultimate deterrent and that we need them to stop other people nuking us. So if someone nukes us without us carrying out the first strike, then they clearly aren't that much of a deterrent are they, So they'll have failed in that case and there's little point in using them.
Click to expand...
The whole point of a deterrent is that they deter the attack taking place and the only way that happens is if there's an expectation that you'll respond if attacked. You'd have to be an idiot to launch a nuclear attack against a state that has nuclear weapons if you know they'd retaliate in kind. You can have an opinion about whether you'd ever use them, so can I, so can the next man, but for someone who's potentially going to be Prime Minister to say publicly that he wouldn't renders our deterrent useless and is a spectacularly stupid thing to do.
 
Theresa May squirming at audience questions regarding her u-turns, treatment of the disabled and poor pay for nurses.

Corbyn squirming because the audience want an answer on whether or not he'll commit genocide on the biggest scale ever seen.

Britain today.
 
hilts said:
Another one who doesn't understand.

There are two options to take on nuclear weapons

Don't have them and save lots of money

Have them and tell everyone you would use them even if you wouldn't

Having them and saying you won't use them or not answer the question is about as fucking stupid as stupid gets.

Corbyn has discarded common sense because his past dictates that he feels he has to
Click to expand...
@Damocles was looking for the thought process and I replied by giving it to him
 
MCFC1993 said:
I'm trying to make a point so similar to what you're saying but it's so hard to word it right. I get the need for a deterrent, I get the need for a leader to say they will use them or at least lie about using them.

However, either as a first option or a retaliation strike the final result is equally grim.
Click to expand...

simple fact is that being a signatory of the non-proliferation treaty - along with the other - we would be in breach if we were to use as a first strike option under article 3 of the first pillar. As regards retaliation - whether he would whether whether he wouldn't is immaterial - by that stage we would have already lost.
 
Mike N said:
Boris is on at the moment on BBC2, what a clown!
Click to expand...
Boris FFS ! What a.......................

evil-clown.jpg


run the country ????
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top