Jo Swinson

[Ban-jani]

Her nuclear button answer showed why she isn't up to any hob in a cabinet, never mind as PM.

Even at the height of the cold war neither side were prepared to push the button or say they would, but it was implied they might, the ambiguity is why it is an effective deterent.

You’re a smart guy and a good poster so I really don’t want to be insulting and don’t mean this as such... however I find this argument one of the most lacking in politics. It’s sheer madness.

The reason the Cold War stayed cold was purely because they knew the other was willing to fire.

What do you think Putin will do if he thinks we’re soft?

I can’t imagine for a minute Swinson will want to press that button but her job is to make our enemies think she would if needed, and without any hesitation.

 

[urban genie]

You’re a smart guy and a good poster so I really don’t want to be insulting and don’t mean this as such... however I find this argument one of the most lacking in politics. It’s sheer madness.

The reason the Cold War stayed cold was purely because they knew the other was willing to fire.

What do you think Putin will do if he thinks we’re soft?

I can’t imagine for a minute Swinson will want to press that button but her job is to make our enemies think she would if needed, and without any hesitation.

Niether were willing to fire, but they never knew if the other might, that what made it such a good deterent, if one side outright says yes I'll nuke you the other has fuck all to lose doing the same, the not knowing is what made it effective.

 

[Ban-jani]

Niether were willing to fire, but they never inew if the other might, that what made it such a good deterent, if one side outright says yes I'll nuke you yhe other has fuck all to lose doing the same, the not knowing is what made it effective.

The point isn’t the willingness to fire first or without provocation such as invasion.

The question is if you are invaded or fired upon, would you press the button and the answer has to be ‘yes’. It’s what stops the former two things happening.

The Soviet and the US knew they’d be toast if they too far and it nearly happened outside of Cuba.

Were either ever asked on it directly ?

Obviously today with 24hr news and Social Media, other world leaders will see much more of their opponents and these questions are frequently asked.

 

[urban genie]

The point isn’t the willingness to fire first or without provocation such as invasion.

The question is if you are invaded or fired upon, would you press the button and the answer has to be ‘yes’. It’s what stops the former two things happening.

The Soviet and the US knew they’d be toast if they too far and it nearly happened outside of Cuba.

Were either ever asked on it directly ?

Obviously today with 24hr news and Social Media, other world leaders will see much more of their opponents and these questions are frequently asked.

You would only use a nuclear weapon in response to a nuclear attack, being invaded isn't a reason to nuke someone, conventional weapons would be the normal process.

The cuban missle crisis as shown in the agreemment america removed it's missle from turkey and italy and the soviets from cuba, both were never in the mind to fire so compromised, the idiots we have now would posture and bluff, whereas Kenedy and Khrustchev were proper politicians who extensively worked to avoid a crisis not the careerist clowns we have suffered the last 10 years.

 

[Gray]

Stronger ecomomy, simple as that.

How can she be sure of a stronger economy?

 

[Gray]

The economy obviously.

Plus she’s putting tax up across the board and charging frequent flyers a lot more.

If she things the British public will vote for that she is living in cloud cuckoo land.

 

[The perfect fumble]

You would only use a nuclear weapon in response to a nuclear attack, being invaded isn't a reason to nuke someone, conventional weapons would be the normal process.

The cuban missle crisis as shown in the agreemment america removed it's missle from turkey and italy and the soviets from cuba, both were never in the mind to fire so compromised, the idiots we have now would posture and bluff, whereas Kenedy and Khrustchev were proper politicians who extensively worked to avoid a crisis not the careerist clowns we have suffered the last 10 years.

Swinson is desperate to avoid looking weak, because she is.

 

[Ban-jani]

You would only use a nuclear weapon in response to a nuclear attack, being invaded isn't a reason to nuke someone, conventional weapons would be the normal process.

The cuban missle crisis as shown in the agreemment america removed it's missle from turkey and italy and the soviets from cuba, both were never in the mind to fire so compromised, the idiots we have now would posture and bluff, whereas Kenedy and Khrustchev were proper politicians who extensively worked to avoid a crisis not the careerist clowns we have suffered the last 10 years.

No, you would be prepared to use it if someone invaded, that’s the point.

I want Putin to think that if he mounted an invasion and had ships off our coast that Moscow would be demolished.

It’s why you don’t get invaded when you have these weapons.

Well they had us in a worse crisis than our current lot so I may beg to differ on that.

 

[Ban-jani]

If she things the British public will vote for that she is living in cloud cuckoo land.

Which part?

Most of the tax policy is coming from corporations, twice as much as anywhere else but fundamentally not too much and with us being in the Single Market still, they wouldn’t be looking to leave the UK as a result.

 

[blueparrot]

How can she be sure of a stronger economy?

Don't think anyone even most Brexit supporters are still expecting Brexit not to have a downward impact on the economy. They may argue about how much and how long but nobody is pretending it won’t be detrimental anymore. They just argue it’ll be worth it to get our freedom. So predicting remain will be better for the economy is just accepted thinking for most.

 

[Ban-jani]

Swinson is desperate to avoid looking weak, because she is.

How is she weak?

I don’t particularly like her but she’s not shown weakness. Most of the criticism has been naive confidence.

Her revoke policy is a lot more ballsy than Corbyn sat on that fence since 2015.

 

[Len Rum]

Swinson is desperate to avoid looking weak, because she is.

This.
She's also hopelessly out of her depth.

 

[urban genie]

No, you would be prepared to use it if someone invaded, that’s the point.

I want Putin to think that if he mounted an invasion and had ships off our coast that Moscow would be demolished.

It’s why you don’t get invaded when you have these weapons.

Well they had us in a worse crisis than our current lot so I may beg to differ on that.

We don't get invaded because there is no fucker who wants to, having things like a united europe, nato etc tends to have put the stop to such.

Putin isn't stupid enough to do such, the fucker has changed to modern usefull warfare like cyber attacks and influencing social media.

Any nuclear deterent should be a modern duel role missle system not some money saping wastes like trident and whether we use them should bever be revealed, we might, we might not

Any other answer is counter productive and I include jezza completely ruling it out too.

Swinson trying to look like some decisive leader, but with apearance makes her look less up to the task than the last.

 

[Scottyboi]

Swinson is boring as fuck, could talk a glass eye to sleep. I don't feel engaged at all when she speaks, compared to Sturgeon and Sian last night she is several levels below them.

 

[Ban-jani]

We don't get invaded because there is no fucker who wants to, having things like a united europe, nato etc tends to have put the stop to such.

Putin isn't stupid enough to do such, the fucker has changed to modern usefull warfare like cyber attacks and influencing social media.

Any nuclear deterent should be a modern duel role missle system not some money saping wastes like trident and whether we use them should bever be revealed, we might, we might not

Any other answer is counter productive and I include jezza completely ruling it out too.

Swinson trying to look like some decisive leader, but with apearance makes her look less up to the task than the last.

She was asked the question, she didn’t just announce it and the answer of yes makes us a country look strong, should she get in.

You’re right about cyber warfare etc. but any sign of weakness he will prey on and the need to be prepared to fire a nuclear weapon, or to make them think we will - which is the main point really.

I think people underestimate Putin and what he’s willing to do and we need to keep the fucker in his box and we have an obligation to be very strong to our allies.

We’re not going to agree on this, let’s face it.

I think if you’ve got a deterrent there, at least act like you’ll use it.

 

[Ban-jani]

Swinson is boring as fuck, could talk a glass eye to sleep. I don't feel engaged at all when she speaks, compared to Sturgeon and Sian last night she is several levels below them.

Sian has just talks and talks and talks.

She’s saying they will be carbon neutral in 10 years but she’s not committed to 100% electric cars, how does that work?

I actually thought Swinson and Farage were the best.

 

[The perfect fumble]

How is she weak?

I don’t particularly like her but she’s not shown weakness. Most of the criticism has been naive confidence.

Her revoke policy is a lot more ballsy than Corbyn sat on that fence since 2015.

There's nothing ballsy about her, her Brexit proposition is not a serious one, certainly not for a party that aspires to govern. The Lib Dems are playing the role of spoiler party, thrashing around making it up as they go along. That's the problem with the Lib Dems they are desperately opportunistic, changing with the weather while mouthing platitudes about principles, tailoring their offering depending on constituency, they are promiscuous hucksters, they'll do anything, sleep with anyone, for a taste of power.

 

[Blue Hefner]

Sian has just talks and talks and talks.

She’s saying they will be carbon neutral in 10 years but she’s not committed to 100% electric cars, how does that work?

I actually thought Swinson and Farage were the best.

As of April 2020 electric cars can be deducted from Corp tax with 0% benefit in kind tax, I found this out yesterday so could be a little off. But if I’m right, electric cars will be more or less free for business owners

However, I don’t think any of the main parties will be shouting this initiative from the rooftops, regardless of its merits, as it will be seen(rightly or wrongly) as a ‘give away’ to the rich

 

[Ban-jani]

There's nothing ballsy about her, her Brexit proposition is not a serious one, certainly not for a party that aspires to govern. The Lib Dems are playing the role of spoiler party, thrashing around making it up as they go along. That's the problem with the Lib Dems they are desperately opportunistic, changing with the weather while mouthing platitudes about principles, tailoring their offering depending on constituency, they are promiscuous hucksters, they'll do anything, sleep with anyone, for a taste of power.

It’s easy to type a load of bluster and hyperbole without actually saying why you think any of it.

You could have typed that out about anyone and that shows what a ridiculously unspecific post it is.

What is about their policies you disagree with?

As it stands they’re a moderate party, with an average leader, who doesn’t like your party’s leader... that’s it isn’t it?

 

[Ban-jani]

As of April 2020 electric cars can be deducted from Corp tax with 0% benefit in kind tax, I found this out yesterday so could be a little off. But if I’m right, electric cars will be more or less free for business owners

However, I don’t think any of the main parties will be shouting this initiative from the rooftops, regardless of its merits, as it will be seen(rightly or wrongly) as a ‘give away’ to the rich

That’s all fair enough but why are the Greens committing to zero emissions when they’re not really?