the snap general election thread

Joe_Horner

setmefree2 wrote: »

But Corbyn is only going to increase immigration - particularly refugees. So why would they vote for him?

He'll also be totally soft on terrorism. No shoot to kill, no Prevent.

Hug a terrorist.

What have you been listening to?

He, rightly, won't put a number on immigration but has been 100% clear that it will be on a managed basis according to our country's need and that he'd expect that to mean a reduction.

He intends to cut off the arms that we're selling to countries that are passing them on to people involved in ISIS and also work to reduce rather than increase (as Blair and the current lot have done) their recruiting potential.

Prevent is an ill conceived, badly flawed, strategy which many respected authorities say risks increasing radicalisation rather than reducing it. At the very least it needs serious revision to stop abuses which have already been seen.

At NO point has he suggested that someone engaged in an act of terror can't be shot dead if that's the appropriate response on the ground - a decision which would not be up to him in any case.

GreatApe

setmefree2 wrote: »

But Corbyn is only going to increase immigration - particularly refugees. So why would they vote for him?

He'll also be totally soft on terrorism. No shoot to kill, no Prevent.

Hug a terrorist.

I had a few people in mind when I posted that, they were always labor but I haven't kept in contact with them and could quite easily see them having voted ukip. They used to totally hate foreign aid and migration and would quite clearly say this even to the migrants at work.

With UKIP falling as a party who else are they going to go to but back to labor? Its not like they would ever vote green or lib dem.


Since May called the election the tories polling is about steady, its labor that have gained a lot of ground and UKIP that have lost a lot and to some extent Lib Dems too

Another factor is that the referendum last year for the EU saw more people vote than the GE so I think the turnout this time around is going to be better than the 2015 election which will help labor

GreatApe

How many EU migrants have applied for and gained citizenship since the EU referendum?

Did the Tories account for their future voting habits once they inevitably gain British citizenship once the uk leaves the EU?

Did they shoot themselves in the foot if say 1/4th are right wing and 3/4th are left wing? They might even be more left leaning as they are on average younger.

And if the referendum last year means participation this year is higher that too should favor the left leaning parties

setmefree2

GreatApe wrote: »

How many EU migrants have applied for and gained citizenship since the EU referendum?

Did the Tories account for their future voting habits once they inevitably gain British citizenship once the uk leaves the EU?

Did they shoot themselves in the foot if say 1/4th are right wing and 3/4th are left wing? They might even be more left leaning as they are on average younger.

And if the referendum last year means participation this year is higher that too should favor the left leaning parties

I know the polls are showing that labour have a chance - i really don't believe it. I think the polls are going to be found out to be a pile of poop. Sorry i can't believe we are going to vote for a hug a terrorist party any time soon.

!!!!!! these terrorists were flagged up on national TV as potentially killers - !!!!!!?
Liberalism gone nuts.

Our security services got tons of money so !!!!!! went wrong?

Joe_Horner

setmefree2 wrote: »

Sorry i can't believe we are going to vote for a hug a terrorist party any time soon.

So we should be voting for an "arm and recruit a terrorist" one instead?

setmefree2

Joe_Horner wrote: »

So we should be voting for an "arm and recruit a terrorist" one instead?

I guess you're one of those hug a terrorist types - we deserve it - it's all our fault...so we should suuuuufffer...let's invite more people who hate us to our country...

The liberal left that filled our country with jahadis that hate us ...
You couldn't make it up...

Maybe our security services should be ashamed of themselves?

posh*spice

setmefree2 wrote: »

I guess you're one of those hug a terrorist types - we deserve it - it's all our fault...so we should suuuuufffer...let's invite more people who hate us to our country...

The liberal left that filled our country with jahadis that hate us ...
You couldn't make it up...

Maybe our security services should be ashamed of themselves?

Anyone who thinks that Corbyn will stop the maddness rather than add to it is nuts

posh*spice

Anyway don't forget the hearts there should be lots of hearts :heartsmil:heartsmil:heartpuls

fun4everyone

Alan Partridge?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gt7lWRtfve8

Enterprise_1701C

In 1994, through an accident of fate, the newly independent country of Ukraine found itself in possession of the world’s third largest nuclear arsenal.

At first, Ukraine planned to keep its nuclear weapons. But, at the insistence of the two strongest powers in the world — Russia and the United States — Ukraine agreed to give up their nukes in exchange for perpetual guarantees of sovereignty and territorial integrity.

This supposedly ironclad treaty, signed 20 years ago, was the Budapest Memorandum.
The world was a different place then. The Soviet Union was breaking up, and many of the former Russian satellite states in Eastern Europe were becoming independent countries.

Why not give up their nukes? Russia was their protector and would always be there, and the U.S. lived up to its treaties. Ukraine didn’t need nuclear weapons. The Treaty was signed by Bill Clinton, Boris Yeltsin, John Major (of England) and Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma.

All of these leaders agreed to protect the sovereignty and “territorial agreement” of Ukraine, meaning any Russian support for Crimean independence would be in violation of Russia’s international obligations.

The three powers committed to “respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine” and “refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine.”

I guess Ukrainians learned their lesson: Things change.
You can be sure that Vladimir Putin wouldn’t have seized Crimea if Ukraine had kept their nuclear weapons.

What lesson has this taught the other nuclear countries that still have the bomb: India, Israel, South Africa, Pakistan, North Korea, Russia, France, England and, maybe, soon-to-be Iran?


Yes, the US should tone down rhetoric and accept that soviet crimea will continue as that. To be honest I think the US should stop going around trying to tell people how to run their countries.

I also think that the only thing that is stopping Putin going one step further is the fact that he is not the only one with nuclear weapons, and he cannot invade a lot of places, including the UK, without thinking that maybe he will regret it. At the same time, if Russia try to attack us I certainly cannot see NATO sitting still and letting them carry on, doing that would simply put out an open invitation saying we will bow down to Putin.