Election Debates

First topic message reminder :

A number of debates are taking place. Below is May v Corbyn. What is everyones' view on the debate? who do you think came out on top? Did the debate change your mind on who you will vote for or convince you who to vote for if you were undecided?

You've also not addressed the question there Dolph at all.

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:I've gotta add that I think the comments from the Conservatives towards Diane Abbott recently have been disgustingly disrespectful and another unnecessary negative of a campaign of misery and fear

She doesn't deserve any respect from anyone, she is a loathsome incompetent fool who thinks playing the race card against Theresa May is a acceptable.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:You've also not addressed the question there Dolph at all.

Were you in the audience last night?

The weapons are there as a deterrent, they're there to state we can rather than we will use them. If it ever got to the point in which the alarms went off and there was a nuke heading to us I'd be a lot more concerned about spending my last few minutes with my loved ones than blowing the bejeesus out of whoever fired it.

I just don't get this logic behind nuclear weapons. If Russia fired a nuclear weapon at England it would most likely wipe out the whole of the south of England in the initial strike before the radiation and toxins spread to the rest of the uk causing people to die slowly.

So if Russia did that and killed 10's of millions of innocent people why should we fire back and kill 10's of millions of innocent people in return. They like us probably want peace but its their government and a vocal minority of the public who want war.

All nuclear weapons do is kill innocent people in their millions and a nuclear war will destroy the world.

Nobody is advocating war and to be honest you don't seem to have much clue about the warheads themselves, repeating the same false representation.

Are you aware of how many nuclear warheads have been detonated?

I'm against them and I'm against their renewal but renewing them requires a policy of retaliation.

Wait, so there was no nuance to your question, you were actually asking me if I'd use it? Looks like I gave you too much credit there. Personally, no, id have no desire were we about to get hit by a nuclear weapon to have my last act to kill millions of other innocent people as a revenge shot.

Again that wasn't the question Dolph as you're well aware, you're either not as smart as you think you are or being deliberately obtuse.

I think the question was "would I use it?" and the answer was "no."

Like I assumed not as smart as you think you are, Ive repeated the actual question numerous times.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:That wasn't the question was it Olly, if you're renewing Trident would you use it in response to a Nuclear attack?

This question?

I'm trying not to be rude here, which is a better way to be, don't you think?

So you'd spend billions of pounds on a deterrent and openly say you wouldn't use it?

You're rude all the time Dolph so you're failing there.

That wasn't the question, HH. I've addressed that second question.

Stop. Stop making it a fight or about jibes.

All you do is make jibes then accuse others of being the instigator, it's your debating tactic of choice, much like Corbyn diverting.

I will just ask kindly again that you refrain from being rude. Consider it in the tone of a tired teacher. The correct response is not to attack the poster when you have been asked to stop

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:I will just ask kindly again that you refrain from being rude. Consider it in the tone of a tired teacher. The correct response is not to attack the poster when you have been asked to stop

He talks utter nonsense and says things to get a reaction rather than to have a genuine debate, it is why I have put him on my ignore list so I don't have to see the drivel he says.

Is that above comment not rude then Dolph or is it only those you disagree with?

Why have you supported hammas?

I just want peace and there needs to be a discussion for that to happen

But why do you support terrorist groups?

I just want peace and th-

But why did you talk to the IRA?

I just w-

But would you nuke someone?


That was the audience on QT last night.

You can't change the audience now....Deal with what you can do something about.

Life isn't fair......CNN gave Clinton the questions before Trump and Sanders took her on...Gotta move on....

What is your reading of the situation...I'm not politically active but do vote.

Is something in the air ?..Do you smell revolution. .??

Personally I'd prefer the person in charge of the button to be someone who'd do everything possible to never get to the point of needing to push it.
What a ridiculous loaded question it was as well, he says yes and people then pounce on him being a mass murderer, he says no and people what's the point of having them.

In all honesty I think if this election was in 2020 as planned I think Corbyn would walk it. He has gained so much support over the past few weeks simply by being given a platform to air his views to a wide audience.

However the election is not in 2020 it is next week and I think the tries will hold on. However just holding on is not what May wanted, she was expecting a 100 seat plus tory landslide.

The latest yougov poll is predicting a hung parliament which may or may not happen but it just shows how much the gap has closed considering that same poll predicted the tories would get 400+ seats only a few weeks ago.

Hero wrote:Personally I'd prefer the person in charge of the button to be someone who'd do everything possible to never get to the point of needing to push it.
What a ridiculous loaded question it was as well, he says yes and people then pounce on him being a mass murderer, he says no and people what's the point of having them.

Ridiculous because it made Corbyn look like a fool.

Hero wrote:Personally I'd prefer the person in charge of the button to be someone who'd do everything possible to never get to the point of needing to push it.
What a ridiculous loaded question it was as well, he says yes and people then pounce on him being a mass murderer, he says no and people what's the point of having them.

I think he came out of that question looking really good. Finally we have a potential leader who is not war hungry and not willing to state he would kill millions by nuking them.

On all of the comments sections on bbc news and question time facebook pages the overwhelming majority of comments are praising him for his position.

Musclular-mouse wrote:

On all of the comments sections on bbc news and question time facebook pages the overwhelming majority of comments are praising him for his position.

Repeat that all you want but it's simply not true.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

Hero wrote:Personally I'd prefer the person in charge of the button to be someone who'd do everything possible to never get to the point of needing to push it.
What a ridiculous loaded question it was as well, he says yes and people then pounce on him being a mass murderer, he says no and people what's the point of having them.

Ridiculous because it made Corbyn look like a fool.

Your opinion.

And the opinion of many others.

And the opinion of many others was that echoed by the lady who spoke at the end of that part of the debate by saying why are some people so keen to want the death of millions which was met with a huge round of applause.

Nuclear war (if it were ever to happen) would be Armagheddon. A few Tridents would make no difference as mankind would be wiped out. I don't get all this faux security people feel Trident gives us. As soon as the first nuclear weapon is fired in anger it is gameover for the human race.

There's a huge world of difference between simply saying you would press the button to let the likes of N.Korea and Iran etc know we have a deterrent and actually pressing it. It should also certainly be never used first which Corbyn was spot on with his view, if it then got to point which I hope it never did that a load of nukes were heading this way then is then actually any point in sending some back?

CaledonianCraig wrote:Nuclear war (if it were ever to happen) would be Armagheddon. A few Tridents would make no difference as mankind would be wiped out. I don't get all this faux security people feel Trident gives us. As soon as the first nuclear weapon is fired in anger it is gameover for the human race.

What you then do is stick to your guns and seek disarmament, if Corbyn had stuck his principles instead of towing the party line there wouldn't be such a big thing made of it. Renewing Trident and a reluctance to use it are conflicting ideals, you either go one way or another, i'm for disarmament and Hiroshima and Nagasaki is the single most evil action ever carried out, there is no justification for it.

It has to be disarmament on a global scale though rather than as an individual nation. It's akin to the highest risk game of poker in the world, bluff and counterbluff over what people will and won't do but if you've folded then everyone else clears up.

Musclular-mouse wrote:In all honesty I think if this election was in 2020 as planned I think Corbyn would walk it. He has gained so much support over the past few weeks simply by being given a platform to air his views to a wide audience.

However the election is not in 2020 it is next week and I think the tries will hold on. However just holding on is not what May wanted, she was expecting a 100 seat plus tory landslide.

The latest yougov poll is predicting a hung parliament which may or may not happen but it just shows how much the gap has closed considering that same poll predicted the tories would get 400+ seats only a few weeks ago.

What vote share do you think you will get..??

Will Corbyn stay.Do you think ?

Hero wrote:It has to be disarmament on a global scale though rather than as an individual nation. It's akin to the highest risk game of poker in the world, bluff and counterbluff over what people will and won't do but if you've folded then everyone else clears up.

That's the point though isn't it, if you've got the weaponry at your disposal the only logical response is to say you'll use it and lets be honest we'd be way down the list of targets for as long as America carry on trying to be the world police. It's not justifying the deaths of millions and it is a high risk game of poker and unfortunately what you say is more important than how you feel.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Nuclear war (if it were ever to happen) would be Armagheddon. A few Tridents would make no difference as mankind would be wiped out. I don't get all this faux security people feel Trident gives us. As soon as the first nuclear weapon is fired in anger it is gameover for the human race.

What you then do is stick to your guns and seek disarmament, if Corbyn had stuck his principles instead of towing the party line there wouldn't be such a big thing made of it. Renewing Trident and a reluctance to use it are conflicting ideals, you either go one way or another, i'm for disarmament and Hiroshima and Nagasaki is the single most evil action ever carried out, there is no justification for it.

The hard facts are that ANY nuclear war would be curtains for mankind so ideally we want to avoid that ever happening. And that being the case I'd sooner have a pacifist/negotiator type running the country to be able to prevent nuclear war happening by negotiating peace rather than a brainless macho-image type.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Nuclear war (if it were ever to happen) would be Armagheddon. A few Tridents would make no difference as mankind would be wiped out. I don't get all this faux security people feel Trident gives us. As soon as the first nuclear weapon is fired in anger it is gameover for the human race.

What you then do is stick to your guns and seek disarmament, if Corbyn had stuck his principles instead of towing the party line there wouldn't be such a big thing made of it. Renewing Trident and a reluctance to use it are conflicting ideals, you either go one way or another, i'm for disarmament and Hiroshima and Nagasaki is the single most evil action ever carried out, there is no justification for it.

The hard facts are that ANY nuclear war would be curtains for mankind so ideally we want to avoid that ever happening. And that being the case I'd sooner have a pacifist/negotiator type running the country to be able to prevent nuclear war happening by negotiating peace rather than a brainless macho-image type.

One that would still renew Trident.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Nuclear war (if it were ever to happen) would be Armagheddon. A few Tridents would make no difference as mankind would be wiped out. I don't get all this faux security people feel Trident gives us. As soon as the first nuclear weapon is fired in anger it is gameover for the human race.

What you then do is stick to your guns and seek disarmament, if Corbyn had stuck his principles instead of towing the party line there wouldn't be such a big thing made of it. Renewing Trident and a reluctance to use it are conflicting ideals, you either go one way or another, i'm for disarmament and Hiroshima and Nagasaki is the single most evil action ever carried out, there is no justification for it.

The hard facts are that ANY nuclear war would be curtains for mankind so ideally we want to avoid that ever happening. And that being the case I'd sooner have a pacifist/negotiator type running the country to be able to prevent nuclear war happening by negotiating peace rather than a brainless macho-image type.

One that would still renew Trident.

Your point?

Mines is that he is a pacifist and even if Trident is renewed he'd more likely negotiate peace than bring Armagheddon to the world which is an admirable route to take and one that anyone with a head should prefer to an aggressive sort with their finger hovering over the button.

I don't think anyone has their finger hovering over a button, seems like two conflicting ideologies to me. You either disarm or have a policy of second use.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:I don't think anyone has their finger hovering over a button, seems like two conflicting ideologies to me. You either disarm or have a policy of second use.

Or best option of all you negotiate for peace.

Theres only two situations you would ever push that button.

A. You fire first. Thats an act of agression. Trident is not a deterrent.

B. You fire second. Thats an act of retalistion. Trident is not a deterrent.

Its a lose/lose scenario.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:I don't think anyone has their finger hovering over a button, seems like two conflicting ideologies to me. You either disarm or have a policy of second use.

Or best option of all you negotiate for peace.

Doesn't quite work does it when you've spent £200billion renewing the nuclear fleet, we want peace but we just built this.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:I don't think anyone has their finger hovering over a button, seems like two conflicting ideologies to me. You either disarm or have a policy of second use.

Or best option of all you negotiate for peace.

Doesn't quite work does it when you've spent £200billion renewing the nuclear fleet, we want peace but we just built this.

Who gives a stuff what it costs - keep it tucked away and negotiate for peace first and foremost.

Why have it at all then Craig?

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Why have it at all then Craig?

You mean you don't really know?

It is seen as a way of deterring others from attacking you. The thought being that as you have a nuclear weapon or plural up your sleeve others won't attack. In all honesty though Trident is like a pop gunn compared to what super powers have - almost like us have a revolver with six bullets whilst Russia have a Kalashnikov rifle as in far more potent and numerous projectiles.

I'm aware of why we have it but it doesn't work as a deterrent if you say you won't use it does it.

ICM 63 percent of 18-24 say they are certain to vote..

2015...43 percent voted....

Flipside...In all Labour marginals less than 5000...Over 65s out number kids by 5000 or more.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:I'm aware of why we have it but it doesn't work as a deterrent if you say you won't use it does it.

At the end of the day does it matter though? You use it and nobody wins anyway - certainly not mankind.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:I'm aware of why we have it but it doesn't work as a deterrent if you say you won't use it does it.

At the end of the day does it matter though? You use it and nobody wins anyway - certainly not mankind.

Not the point at all is it.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:I'm aware of why we have it but it doesn't work as a deterrent if you say you won't use it does it.

At the end of the day does it matter though? You use it and nobody wins anyway - certainly not mankind.

Not the point at all is it.

Of course it is.

If a nuclear war is threatening you want someone in charge who can negotiate peace first and foremost. If that fails you then hope Trident acts as a deterrent and your enemy won't dare attack because of the consequences but if they do then it is game over for mankind. No side is a winner.

18-24 voted in 2015..ipsos

Labour 43..Con 27...Lib 5...Green 8...........

18-24..ICM 2017..

Labour 68...Con 16..Lib 8 Green 3...

Are most of them registered and can Labour get them out ??

We also have political agreements to have it - the main reason both major parties are saying they'd keep it. This issue you're debating is ignoring that major elephant in the room.