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.
Tanzeylee said:
Surprised there actually thought you would be a coffee man and have it how you like your men, black and strong :-)
Click to expand...
Well played Sir, you can never beat a good Airplane gag.
 
MCFC1993 said:
It's also a question that could equally be answered with a lie which is mental and why the hypothetical scenario is so daft.

However, I think almost everyone can agree on there being far bigger issues than nuclear war/retaliations etc...
Click to expand...
Then why doesn't he just lie to get the attention off him about it? He'd take so much pressure off himself about this issue by just saying "of course i'd retain our nuclear deterrant" but due to his opposition to Trident renewal costs (which is actually still useful in it's current form for the next 15-20 years, but the problem is a renewal takes about that long to fully replace to make them efficient) in the past he doesn't want to be seen as doing a u-turn on the issue.

The question put to Corbyn is about leadership from the role of defence just as May is constantly being badgered about her social care leadership? She's seen as a weak PM on this issue, Corbyn is seen as a weak PM on defence which, as we've seen in the past couple of years, is an issue at the front of people's minds (not nuclear threats, obviously). If Corbyn cannot be decisive on the most important decision such as utilising our nuclear deterrant at a time of crisis, it doesn't instill people with confidence in him on other matters such as terrorism or foreign affairs. He can campaign to remove Trident at some point in the future yet still say he'd use it whilst we still have it. It won't be popular with many people, but it won't mean he's made a u-turn. So far he's not giving a clear response, just saying how nuclear war is evil and he hopes one day it's no longer a plague on the world. But whilst it IS, would he utilise our nuclear deterrant if the occasion ever occured?

"We can all agree that nuclear war is abhorrant and nobody wants to see it in our lifetimes and it is my hope that...."
 
andyhinch said:
When you play poker do you show your hand before they pay to see you, anyway you know what you put in your post.
Click to expand...


The whole idea of a deterrent is that you do show your hand. In fact a poker analogy is about as daft an analogy as you could have made

There seem to be a few people who are too stupid to understand or as Corbyn supporters are just playing football team politics.

If they are stupid today they will be stupid tomorrow and the day after. If it's the second they will be voting Labour come what may anyhow

So it seems a bit pointless. I could even give a scenario where Corbyns actions cost millions of lives butwhy waste my time.
 
hilts said:
We aren't saying he should do it I know I probably wouldn't
We are saying he should say that he would. I think it is you that needs to think it through
Click to expand...
All he said was no first response. All those baying for him to do it are ridiculous. No one ultimately knows what they'd do in that situation frankly
including May. What she says and does are not always the same thing. The fact we have capability to kill 8m people with our weapons I think is deterrent enough.
 
taleofbluehalves said:
All he said was no first response. All those baying for him to do it are ridiculous. No one ultimately knows what they'd do in that situation frankly
including May. What she says and does are not always the same thing. The fact we have capability to kill 8m people with our weapons I think is deterrent enough.
Click to expand...

Another one
 
Machiavelli said:
If we were nuked our special friends at Team America would avenge us, unless Don's hands are too puny to operate the mechanism.
Click to expand...

He would be pressing the red button over and over again wondering why it's not working and behind him the tv would be turning off and on
 
hilts said:
The whole idea of a deterrent is that you do show your hand. In fact a poker analogy is about as daft an analogy as you could have made

There seem to be a few people who are too stupid to understand or as Corbyn supporters are just playing football team politics.

If they are stupid today they will be stupid tomorrow and the day after. If it's the second they will be voting Labour come what may anyhow

So it seems a bit pointless. I could even give a scenario where Corbyns actions cost millions of lives butwhy waste my time.
Click to expand...
I've never said I'm not stupid, but I'm just trying to keep up, could you explain all this nuclear stuff to me it all seems so complicated.
 
hilts said:
Another one
Click to expand...

another one what? somebody who says no to mass murder? Is that a bad thing now FFS? If we have a non-first strike stance in like with treaty obligations then there is unlikely to be a retaliation option - we'd all be dead
 
andyhinch said:
I've never said I'm not stupid, but I'm just trying to keep up, could you explain all this nuclear stuff to me it all seems so complicated.
Click to expand...
What is it that you need to know that's not already been said?

Not an attack, genuinely here to help you understand our point of view on the subject.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top