Current Affairs 2017 General Election

[orchard]

A vote for plaid is a wasted vote.

Answer the question!

 

[Kurt.]

You wanted them added to the poll ffs

It was only fair in a national election that all parties are afforded the same respect. Would never vote for them though.

 

[hullefc]

The voice of reason.

 

[Kurt.]

Answer the question!

I'm not really a political animal who understands the ins and outs of each manifesto but I am a realist. If you don't want the tories in charge vote labour. If you don't want labour vote tory. Any other vote is a waste .

 

[orchard]

#shywelshtory

I'm not really a political animal who understands the ins and outs of each manifesto but I am a realist. If you don't want the tories in charge vote labour. If you don't want labour vote tory. Any other vote is a waste .

 

[Number_25]

#shywelshtory

This is not doing anyone any favours.

I happen to think that Welsh nationalism is a cancer, and is as bad - if not worse - than the dog-whistle racism we're seeing from the mainstream right-wing parties.

 

[Kurt.]

This is not doing anyone any favours.

I happen to think that Welsh nationalism is a cancer, and is as bad - if not worse - than the dog-whistle racism we're seeing from the mainstream right-wing parties.

It's almost as bad as english nationalism. .. there's no place for it in a forward thinking progressive United Kingdom.

 

[orchard]

Well firstly, I was joshing with the lad.

Secondly, thanks for sharing your thoughts. I think you may be over-generalising somewhat. There's a vast difference between a people wanting some localised powers as they are not being served by policies intended for somewhere quite different, and fascism.
I'm not Welsh, but live in Wales,and have some time for Plaid, but won't be voting for them this time round.

This is not doing anyone any favours.

I happen to think that Welsh nationalism is a cancer, and is as bad - if not worse - than the dog-whistle racism we're seeing from the mainstream right-wing parties.

 

[ToffeeTim]

This is not doing anyone any favours.

I happen to think that Welsh nationalism is a cancer, and is as bad - if not worse - than the dog-whistle racism we're seeing from the mainstream right-wing parties.

Is Welsh nationalism actually that prevalent tho? My impression has always been that it isn't?

 

[Tubey]

Anyone else massively impressed with Corbyn last night?

Even during the toughest part for him, facing the bloodlust addled Tories in the audience, I thought it reflected far worse on the audience members than Corbyn himself.

May I thought started okay (relative to how she has performed recently) but became increasingly edgy and uncomfortable as the questions went on.

I agree with all you have said. Corbyn dealt really well with the frankly ridiculous questioning on Nuclear weapons. Ok i get ask the question once but when it gets to four separate occasions it frankly just makes the audience look like a baying mob. All other questions i thought he handled really well. Its good to actually see Corbyn on tv as he comes across as a very likeable man also, someone i think people can relate to.

May as you say started brightly but gets seems to make it all about herself and not the people...its almost like some personal crusade she is on rather than the people of the country. Very much the 'i will' 'i can' rather than the collective 'we'

I believe in multilateral nuclear disarmament.

One would have thought that after the complete and utter muck up that was the intervention in Iraq - the vast majority of the British public would have preferred a PM that would approach difficult international matters with a calm, measured manner.

I think last night went well for both May and Corbyn, but I think Corbyn just edged it.

It's still all to play for, the sheer number of 'swing seats' this time around is heartening.

Just make sure you all get out to vote.

Those carping about Corbyn on Trident are likely the same protesting against Iran obtaining nuclear weapons capability. You can't have it both ways.

All the above... there seems to be a completely fundamental misunderstanding of why the nuclear issue is such a big one.

I'll try to explain why it is, and why the audience where at him for it, because it really is one of the reasons Corbyn won't win.

It isn't "bloodlust" to support a nuclear deterrent. Nobody wants to use them. The question is both hypothetical and practical - you have to be prepared to use them so that you never will use them.

Since 1945 and the dropping over the bombs in Japan, there has been no global conflict using traditional methods of warfare that has killed the tens of millions, because of the prospect of mutually assured destruction if a conflict went too far. See the Cuban Missile Crisis, when world powers finally realised that world war is an impossibility due to the consequences of it.

Sort this list by date and look at the drop-off in numbers after 1945 and you'll see what I mean: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_by_death_toll

This is almost solely down to the existence of nuclear weaponry. Any conflict are now conducted either regionally and very contained, or via drone strikes, because rational minds can always keep the irrational in check now by knowing the consequences of not doing so.

http://www.newsweek.com/how-nuclear-weapons-can-keep-you-safe-78907

"We now have 64 years of experience since Hiroshima. It's striking and against all historical precedent that for that substantial period, there has not been any war among nuclear states."

This is why Corbyn's stance is such a big deal. It is student debate club idealism over cold, hard pragmatism, and there are many, many people across the country who look at nuclear weaponry and don't see weapons of mass destruction, but the biggest asset for global peace that exists.

The aim in the real world should be to stop nuclear proliferation and maintain the status quo. Nuclear disarmament is, quite frankly, an impossibility that would be outright dangerous if it happened.

Most of us suffer from what Desch calls a nuclear phobia, an irrational fear that's grounded in good evidence—nuclear weapons are terrifying—but that keeps us from making clear, coldblooded calculations about just how dangerous possessing them actually is. The logic of nuclear peace rests on a scary bargain: you accept a small chance that something extremely bad will happen in exchange for a much bigger chance that something very bad—conventional war—won't happen.

Too many of you have this 'nuclear phobia' - think beyond what the bomb does if used and think about what it has done while not being used.

Nuclear weapons are instruments of peace. Airmen and sailors nobly ensure that nuclear conflict will be deterred by being ready to use them.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...29811dbb57f_story.html?utm_term=.78bfb5dadff2

 

[bring the ghost on]

The difference between Corbyn and May is that Corbyn actually believes in (and is passionate about) the message he's getting across. Every answer appears to come from the heart.

May, on the other hand, appears to crumble when her views and record in government are challenged (it's tough to defend the indefensible).

 

[Boss_Blue]

All the above... there seems to be a completely fundamental misunderstanding of why the nuclear issue is such a big one.

I'll try to explain why it is, and why the audience where at him for it, because it really is one of the reasons Corbyn won't win.

Hello mate, thank you for doing your best to explain to us why we are wrong and you are right. None of us have any education of note nor any understanding of global politics and need those like you to choose our opinions for us.

You are a shining beacon for us all and I am honoured that you have deemed us worthy of receiving your wisdom.








*votes Labour and puts Mr Condescending on the Danger List.

 

[Boss_Blue]

@GrandOldTeam can you hurry up with the neg replacement please?

 

[Tubey]

Hello mate, thank you for doing your best to explain to us why we are wrong and you are right. None of us have any education of note nor any understanding of global politics and need those like you to choose our opinions for us.

You are a shining beacon for us all and I am honoured that you have deemed us worthy of receiving your wisdom.








*votes Labour and puts Mr Condescending on the Danger List.

It's called expressing a view and trying to explain why that view exists, especially when you and others use "baying mob" and "bloodlust addled" to describe those who hold that view.

And you call me condescending...

 

[abelard]

All the above... there seems to be a completely fundamental misunderstanding of why the nuclear issue is such a big one.

I'll try to explain why it is, and why the audience where at him for it, because it really is one of the reasons Corbyn won't win.

It isn't "bloodlust" to support a nuclear deterrent. Nobody wants to use them. The question is both hypothetical and practical - you have to be prepared to use them so that you never will use them.

Since 1945 and the dropping over the bombs in Japan, there has been no global conflict using traditional methods of warfare that has killed the tens of millions, because of the prospect of mutually assured destruction if a conflict went too far. See the Cuban Missile Crisis, when world powers finally realised that world war is an impossibility due to the consequences of it.

Sort this list by date and look at the drop-off in numbers after 1945 and you'll see what I mean: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_by_death_toll

This is almost solely down to the existence of nuclear weaponry. Any conflict are now conducted either regionally and very contained, or via drone strikes, because rational minds can always keep the irrational in check now by knowing the consequences of not doing so.

http://www.newsweek.com/how-nuclear-weapons-can-keep-you-safe-78907



This is why Corbyn's stance is such a big deal. It is student debate club idealism over cold, hard pragmatism, and there are many, many people across the country who look at nuclear weaponry and don't see weapons of mass destruction, but the biggest asset for global peace that exists.

The aim in the real world should be to stop nuclear proliferation and maintain the status quo. Nuclear disarmament is, quite frankly, an impossibility that would be outright dangerous if it happened.



Too many of you have this 'nuclear phobia' - think beyond what the bomb does if used and think about what it has done while not being used.



https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...29811dbb57f_story.html?utm_term=.78bfb5dadff2

That is not even remotely close to what happened during the Cuban Missile Crisis. At one point a Soviet submarine officer overruled an order to launch a nuclear torpedo. We have had many other near misses - Able Archer, the 1979 NORAD computer malfunction, the Norwegian rocket episode. We have been very, very lucky so far.

You should read Eric Schlosser.